Anand Samrat Company, Rep. by Its Partner, Mr. G. Padma Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....of india - petition assailing validity of order of income tax commissioner (itc) - itc rejected application filed for waiver of interest levied under section 220 (2) - no reference to case set out by petitioner nor any reason was disclosed in support of decision in order of itc - itc exercising quasi judicial power was legally bound to consider all relevant materials and passed appropriate reasoned order - court remitted matter to itc with direction to dispose of afresh. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service)..........the petitioner on two grounds. the 1st ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on 27.11.1987 and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated 25.02.1988 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 25.02.1988 and such a course is impermissible. the second reason assigned by the 1st respondent to reject the application is that a major portion of the arrears were collected by the tax recovery officer only by way of sale of land, and that fact shows that the assessee did not cooperate in the proceedings for the recovery of amounts due from it. 3. it is true that the assessee had filed petition under section 220(2) of.....

Judgment:
ORDER

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. The petitioner-assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein dated 21.2.2000 made under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (for short `the Act') rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the said Section for waiver of the interest levied under Section 220(2) filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.

2. The 1st respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds. The 1st ground is that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application on 27.11.1987 and that application was rejected by his predecessor by his order dated 25.02.1988 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 25.02.1988 and such a course is impermissible. The second reason assigned by the 1st respondent to reject the application is that a major portion of the arrears were collected by the Tax Recovery Officer only by way of sale of land, and that fact shows that the assessee did not cooperate in the proceedings for the recovery of amounts due from it.

3. It is true that the assessee had filed petition under Section 220(2) of the Act on 27.11.1987 before the proceedings reached finality. It is also true that that application of the petitioner was considered by the 1st respondent and reached the same on 25.02.1988. That order reads :

'Proceedings of the Commissioner of Income Tax : Andhra Pradesh-III,Hyderabad

Shri D. Lakshminarayana,

Commissioner of Income-Tax

Hqrs.III/2(57)/87-88Dt : 25.2.1988

Sub:- Waiver petition - M/s. Anand Samratand Co. West Maredpally, Sec'bad -Asst. Year 1983-84 - Reg.