TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed of. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the Petition is yet to be disposed of, and the same is pending before the respondent. Thus, considering the fact that Petition for rectification is pending, and this Court, being satisfied that the respondent has not recorded any reasons, as to why, the petitioner is not entitled to waiver of interest, levied under Section 220 (2A), the matter requires to be re-considered by the respondent afresh. Thus, for the above reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed - Writ Petition No. 30776 of 2007, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Venkat Narayanan for M/s.SubbarayaAiyar Padmanabhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale consideration has been directly credited to the Bank or Financial Agency, no capital gains were credit to the assessee. Further, it was submitted that, the decision rendered by the High Court of Andra Pradhesh, in V.Attili Narayana Rao's case (supra) was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only in the year 2001, in the case of Commercial Income Tax V. Attili N.Rao, reported in [(2001) 252 ITR 0880] and what would be the relevant law, which hold the field as on the date of filing the Petition, is the law laid down in the decisions rendered in the cases of Smt.Thressiamma Abraham (supra) Vs. Attili Narayanan Rao (supra). 7. The Revenue, on the other hand, would contend that the respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down under Section 220 (2A) of the Act. 10. Further, it is submitted that the respondent is bound to record the reasons, as to why, he is not satisfied that the waiver cannot be granted. In support of such contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court, in the case of Mani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [(2010) 231 CTR 0453], wherein, it is pointed out that, the respondent is bound to record reasons while passing an order, since the power exercised by the respondent is a quasi judicial power. 11. A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal any cogent reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner. The respondent is bound to consider the Petition, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
