High Court directs fair treatment for petitioner in tax matter, overturns Deputy Commissioner's decision.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and directing a fresh decision. The court emphasized that the petitioner should receive the same treatment as the firm and partner, with seized cash adjusted against advance tax without interest. The court found the rejection of the petitioner's request for adjustment lacking credible reasons and based on irrelevant provisions. The assessing officer was instructed to reconsider the case, ensuring fairness and consistency in treatment among the parties involved.

---

---

Issues: Petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to waive interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partner in a firm where cash was seized by the Income Tax Department, sought adjustment of tax payable out of the seized cash. Despite adjustments made for the firm and another partner, the petitioner faced a demand for interest. The petitioner filed multiple petitions requesting waiver of interest, which were either not addressed or rejected. The petitioner argued that the same treatment should have been given as in the case of the firm and the partner, where advance tax was adjusted without levying interest. The revenue contended that the interest imposed was legal due to the petitioner's failure to pay advance tax as required by law.

Upon review, the High Court found that the Income Tax Department had seized cash from the firm, which was adjusted against advance tax without levying interest, unlike in the petitioner's case. The court noted that the impugned order lacked a credible reason for rejecting the petitioner's request for adjustment and treating him differently. The rejection was based on irrelevant provisions and facts not pertinent to the issue at hand. The court emphasized that the benefit granted to the firm and the partner should also extend to the petitioner by adjusting the amount towards advance tax.

As a result, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 14.12.1994, and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh decision. The assessing officer was directed to reconsider the case, provide an opportunity for a hearing, and consider the orders in the cases of the firm and the partner.

---