2017 (1) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Aravind A. Chavan, learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that no reasons are recorded for rejecting the application filed under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. It is also submitted that the principal ground contended was that as the Income Tax Department had attached the property in the year 2010, for a period of five years until the attachment was lifted, the appellant could not continue with the business activity and on account of the same, if the appellant is called upon to pay the interest, such would cause hardship to the appellant. It has been submitted that the learned Single judge did not consider the aforesaid aspects. Hence, this Court may consider the present appeals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return was filed well in time and fact that it is only after search proceedings, returns were filed and fact that after the assessment was made, no amount of tax was paid and the fact that the coercive steps had to be taken, all would go to show that it was not a case where the assessee had co-operated in the enquiry or the proceedings of assessment for recovery of the amount due to him. 6. The relevant material considered by the authority is that there is no proof produced to show that the payment of interest would cause genuine hardship to the assessee. The matter rests on the aspect of no proof. Even the assessee, in the application has not produced any documentary evidence to show the genuine hardship was to be caused. Even if it is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e iceburg in comparison to huge value of 12 properties belonging to the assessee. If the person has the capacity to pay, may be by out of his movable or immovable properties and inspite of that the ground is contended as of hardship, same cannot be termed as genuine hardship. If such hardship is treated as genuine hardship, it would defeat the purpose of consideration of the genuine hardship. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.M. Malani .vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported at (2008) 306 ITR 019 to contend that in the said case the property was available, inspite of the same the Apex Court found that there was no proper consideration and the matte....