2013 (3) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of India and also for a appropriate writ directing directing respondent no.1 to withdraw and cancel order dated October, 2005 and to waive interest amounting to Rs.13,60,762/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty thousand seven hundred and sixty two only) levied under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act and restrain respondent no. 3 from recovering balance interest amount amounting to Rs.43,078/- (Rupees forty three thousand seventy eight only) and to refund sum of Rs.13,17,684/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventeen thousand six hundred eighty four only). 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:- Petitioner filed returns of income tax for the Assessment Year 1997-98 on 31.10.1997 declaring l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aiver of interest levied under Section 234B was rejected on 25.10.2005 which order has now been challenged in this Writ Petition. Principal contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in clause 2(d) CBDT notification No. 4000/234/95-IT(B) dated 23.5.1996. 5. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Karnatka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gogte Minerals dated 15.9.1995 and it was submitted that in view of the said judgment since the provisions was made by the petitioner was for pit filling expenses and for restoring the said land said amount has to be excluded. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Mini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t does not arise. However, the appellant is aggrieved by the observations of the High court as well as of the Tribunal that on the interpretation of the clauses aforesaid there was no obligation on the appellant to restore the lands to its original condition. However, the appellant is aggrieved by the observation made in the High Court as well as of the Tribunal that the interpretation of the clauses aforesaid there was no obligation on the appellant to restore the land to its original condition. Mr Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee refers to the aforesaid clauses of the lease and also to Rule 14 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960. He submits that it is obligatory in law on the lessee to restore the lands to....