TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as "CIT") rejecting application for waiver of interest charged under Section 220 (2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") observing that all three conditions requisite for waiver contemplated under Section 220 (2A) of Act, 1961 cumulatively are not available/exist in the case in hand, hence petitioner is not entitled for waiver. 3. It appears that petitioner filed return for Assessment Year 1990-91 disclosing his income as Rs. 1,80,910/- but Assessing Officer passed assessment order making addition to the total tune of Rs. 20 lacs and odd. In the appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") set aside addition made by Assessing Officer but Tribunal restored....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 6. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said: "Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." 7. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47). 10. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere. 15. In Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Court said: "...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 19. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another V....