2017 (8) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 19.09.2016 for the assessment year 2003-2004 and for a direction to the first respondent to waive interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 220(2) and Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. This Court, on 18.07.2017, elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and passed the following order:- "Heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the proceedings of the first respondent - the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-III, dated 19.09.2016, by which, the application for waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel would further submit the very same argument would hold good so far as the levy of interest under Rule 5 of the said Rules is concerned. The contention raised is that though, in the impugned order, the first respondent stated that a personal hearing was granted on 21.03.2016 and on 24.03.2016, such hearing was given by the predecessor, who was the then Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-III and not the present Chief Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order. Thus, the argument appears to be as if the person, who heard the petitioner, had not decided the matter, but a different officer in the rank of Chief Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 7. To this extent, this Court is inclined t....