Commissioner's refusal to waive interest under Income Tax Act s. 217 deemed untenable; fresh order required.

The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to waive interest under s. 217 of the Income Tax Act, while granting waivers for other penalties and interest, was untenable. The court directed the Commissioner to issue a fresh order in line with the law, emphasizing that the jurisdiction under s. 273A should be exercised despite the assessee's liability to pay interest under s. 217. The court rejected the respondent's plea for reconsideration of the entire order, stating that once a decision was made in favor of the assessee, it could not be reopened.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Commissioner's order on waiver of penalties and interest under the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a part of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order regarding relief under s. 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for multiple assessment years. The petitioner sought waiver of penalties under ss. 271(1)(a), 273(b), and interest under s. 139(8) and s. 217. The Commissioner waived penalties and interest under s. 139(8) but refused to waive interest under s. 217. The petitioner contended that the reason for refusing to waive interest under s. 217 was untenable and not made in the due exercise of jurisdiction under s. 273A.

The Commissioner's order consisted of two paragraphs, with the relevant part in para. 2 stating the satisfaction of conditions under s. 273A(1) for waiving penalties and interest under s. 139(8) but refusing to interfere with interest under s. 217 due to the petitioner retaining advance tax money. The petitioner's argument was deemed sound as the waiver of penalty under s. 273(b) was granted after fulfilling s. 273A requirements, while interest under s. 217 is chargeable when the assessee fails to file advance tax estimates.

The jurisdiction under s. 273A should be exercised despite the assessee's liability to pay interest under s. 217. The mere failure to file estimates and become liable for interest does not justify refusing to waive interest under s. 217. The reason given by the Commissioner for refusal was deemed invalid. A direction was issued to the Commissioner to make a fresh order regarding the waiver of interest under s. 217 in line with the observations and the law.

The respondent's counsel argued for reconsideration of the entire order, but it was rejected. The Commissioner treated each waiver item separately, and once a decision was favorable to the assessee, it became final and could not be reopened. Therefore, the contention to reconsider the entire order was dismissed, and the rule was made absolute.

---