TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (6) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same. The first respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds. The first ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on November 27, 1987, and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated February 25, 1988, and, therefore, the second petition filed by the petitioner if it is entertained would tantamount to an application seeking review of the earlier order dated February 25, 1988, and such a course is impermissible. The second reason assigned by the first respondent to reject the application is that a major portion of the arrears was collected by the Tax Recovery Officer only by way of sale of land, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be. It is pertinent to note that the order that may be made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 220(2A) of the Act is a statutory order and it is liable to be reviewed by the constitutional courts under articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India. If the statutory authority does not disclose reasons in support of the decision, then it becomes practically impossible for the constitutional courts to know what are the reasons or factors that have gone into the decision-making. In that view of the matter, the statutory authorities are bound to disclose reasons in support of their decisions or orders. Be that as it may, we cannot appreciate the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax that the rejection of the earlier a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts and credit the entire sale proceeds against the taxes payable. By doing so the entire demand was cleared off and some excess sums were also credited in our name for which we are highly grateful. We humbly submit that since we have earnestly tried and have cleared the entire demand, the interest levied under section 220(2) of the Rs.2,53,413 may kindly be waived for which act of kindness, we shall remain ever grateful." The petitioner has stated in the application that with the permission of the Commissioner, he sold the lands and credited the entire sale proceeds towards the tax payable by it. In addition, it is stated in the affidavit that during the course of enquiry before the first-respondent culminating in the impugned order, th....