TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to consider waiver application promptly, holding impugned order in abeyance.</h1> <h3>Mr. Ravikumar Dhandania Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Salem</h3> Mr. Ravikumar Dhandania Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Salem - TMI Issues:1. Impugned proceedings by Income Tax Officer directing payment of a specific sum.2. Petitioner's claim for waiver of interest amount.3. Delay in consideration of petitioner's application by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.4. Respondent's submission regarding the appointment of an officer to consider the application.5. Court's decision on granting time for consideration of the application and keeping the impugned order in abeyance.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings issued by the Income Tax Officer directing payment of a specific sum. The petitioner had paid the tax amount but disputed the balance amount related to interest only. The petitioner sought the benefit of waiver due to showing taxable income and paying tax. The petitioner's application for waiver had not been considered due to the absence of a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in Tiruchirapalli. The impugned order was passed during this period.2. The respondent argued that a senior officer had been appointed to handle the responsibilities in the absence of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondent agreed to consider the petitioner's application on merits and in accordance with the law but requested a reasonable time for the same.3. The Court considered the timeline of events, noting that the original assessment order was passed in January 2015, and the petitioner had already paid the tax amount. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the Officer in charge of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the petitioner's application within four months from the date of the Court's order. Until then, the impugned order was to be kept in abeyance.4. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction for the consideration of the petitioner's application within the specified timeline. No costs were awarded in the matter.This judgment highlights the importance of timely consideration of applications related to tax matters and the Court's intervention to ensure justice for both parties involved.
TaxTMI 