Revision applications allowed despite pending appeal. Time-barred applications for waiver reconsidered. Commissioner's rejections erroneous.

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to seek revision of applications for waiver of penal interest under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, despite being under appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court found the Commissioner's rejection of the applications as time-barred to be erroneous and directed reconsideration on their merits. Additionally, the court clarified that time-barred revision applications under section 33A(2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59 were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner, instructing reconsideration and granting costs to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of applications for waiver of penal interest under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Time-barred revision applications under section 33A(2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was assessed for income tax for multiple assessment years, and penal interest under section 18A(6) was charged due to failure to pay the proper amount of advance tax. The petitioner applied for waiver of interest under section 35 read with rule 48 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. The Commissioner rejected the applications on the grounds of being time-barred and that the question of penal interest was already under appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, making the revision applications not maintainable. The court found that the applications for waiver were independent of the assessment order, and the petitioner was entitled to seek revision. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was erroneous, allowing the petition and directing the Commissioner to reconsider the revision petitions on their merits.

2. The second issue pertained to the time-barred revision applications under section 33A(2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59. The Commissioner had rejected these applications citing that the matter had been appealed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the court clarified that orders under section 18A(6) are not appealable orders, and therefore, the appeals made by the petitioner did not make the question of interest appealable before the Tribunal. The court referred to precedents and held that the Commissioner was mistaken in rejecting the applications on this ground. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the Commissioner's order, and instructed the Commissioner to reconsider the revision petitions based on their merits, granting costs to the petitioner.

---