TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 2 to 5 are the sons of one Perala Govinda Rajulu and all of them are partners of a firm which carried on business in bullion and money-lending, The premises of the firm, Messrs. Perala Govinda Rajulu and Sons as well as the residential premises of the partners, were searched by the income-tax officials in October, 1984, as a result of which several assets of the partnership firm were seized. Within fifteen days from the date of search, the firm voluntarily disclosed a substantial income under the provisions of section 273A in consequence of which assessments were made. The petitioners requested for release of the seized bullion and gold ornaments and an order was passed acceding to their request in March, 1987. The order of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee co-operated in the enquiry relating to the assessment proceedings. Having held that conditions (ii) and (iii) were satisfied, the Commissioner negatived the request for waiver of the interest on the ground that "the primary condition relating to genuine hardship on account of actual payment of interest under section 220(2) has not at all been fulfilled in the case of any of the petitioners-partners". The Commissioner observed that the seizure of jewellery and bullion in the course of the search conducted by the income-tax officials could not be considered to be a reason causing genuine hardship to the assessees because "the extra liabilities on account of interest under section 220(2) is more than compensated by appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between what was mentioned in the impugned order and the averment in the counter-affidavit, there is one other factor which goes to show that all the facts relevant for the determination of the issue were not before the Commissioner of Income-tax when the impugned order was passed : one of the reasons for negativing the request for waiver of interest is that none of the petitioners had ever approached the Assessing Officer requesting for stay of collection of tax liabilities which is clearly contrary to the record, but the petitioners in fact applied on April 24, 1987, to the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, seeking time to make payment of the taxes for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. In view of these inconsiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
