2005 (8) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as per exhibit P8. The said order passed by the Commissioner is under challenge in the writ petition. Sri Balachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Commissioner has not properly applied the law governing section 220(2A) to the fact situation. According to learned senior counsel irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration while leaving out the relevant. Sri Raveendranatha Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, submits that exhibit P8 order is passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and that the Commissioner has exercised his power in accordance with law and has passed a proper order. Section 220(2A) reads as follows: "220.(2A) Notwithstandin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erved that during the said period there was excess payment made by the petitioner and remaining with the Department to be adjusted and after such adjustment the liability was only Rs. 2,50,000 and in such circumstances it cannot be said that payment of interest would cause any genuine hardship to the assessee. A perusal of the statement of accounts of the petitioner would show that the petitioner had been continuously running at a loss up to 1991-92. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was in serious financial crisis at the relevant time, being burdened with liabilities to provident fund, ESI, etc. This crucial aspect of the loss being accumulated for over a period from 1985 to 1992 has missed the notice of the Com....