TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly, the petitioner failed to pay the amount required as per the scheme within the time limit. In paragraph 6 of the original petition, it is stated as follows : "6. So, the balance outstanding as on March 31, 1998, in the year in question was reduced from Rs. 4,43,452, to an amount of Rs. 3,02,239, due to the fact that the coverage under the scheme is provided. But due to reasons, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me against the terms of the scheme itself. Even, if there is a power to condone the delay, the reasons stated for not paying the amount within time and for the delay are not sufficient. In the above circumstances, the petitioner's contention in this aspect cannot be considered. In this connection, I refer to the decisions in Vyshnavi Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT [2000] 243 ITR 101 (AP) ; Kamal Soo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
