TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the mistake u/s 154 of the Act on 18.02.2009. Thereafter, petitioner again filed an application on 2.2.2009 for waiver of interest. Thereafter, he filed yet another application seeking adjournment for four months on 21.2.2013. However, the application was rejected by the competent authority on 12.4.2013. 2. The fact of the matter is that the assessee had handed over two cheques bearing Nos.866541 and 866542 dated 30.12.2001 and 15.3.2001 for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakh and Rs. 5.00 lakh respectively of his bank account no.64 with OBC, 75-Rajpur Road, Dehradun, as a token of payment of advance tax. When the cheques were presented, the same were not honoured by the bank. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued by the I.T.O. on 26.8.2002. Since no return was filed in response to the notice, a further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 9.9.2002. This notice was also not complied with. Thereafter, another notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued on 18.9.2002 and vide order dated 8.10.2002, the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed against the petitioner. The notices were again issued on 17.10.2002 and 17.12.2002. Thereafter, on 13.1.2005, the petitioner filed the return d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss than the amount of advance tax payable on his current income, and the assessee is chargeable to interest under section 234B or section 234C, and the Chief Commissioner/Director General is satisfied that this is a fit case for reduction or waiver of such interest. (d) Where a return of income could not be filed by the assessee due to unavoidable circumstances and such return of income is filed voluntarily by the assessee or his legal heirs without detection by the Assessing Officer." 4. The petitioner could only seek waiver of interest if any of Conditions enumerated in Paragraphs (a) or (b) of Condition no.2 of Circular dated 26.6.2006 issued by the CBDT could be satisfied. 5. According to para number (A) when during the course of proceedings for search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, or otherwise, the books of account and other incriminating documents are seized, and the assessee is unable to furnish the return of income for the previous year, during which the action under section 132 has taken place, within the time specified in this behalf, and moreover, the Chief Commissioner/Director General must be satisfied having regard to the facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the return could not be filed due to unavoidable circumstances. In totality, the petitioner's case is not covered in any of the Paragraphs of the Circular dated 26.6.2006 issued by the CBDT. 13. Moreover, the judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner, which was rendered by the Hon. Apex Court in the matter of 'B.M. Malani v. C.I.T.' Civil Appeal No.5950 of 2008 decided on 1.10.2008, is not applicable in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, the appellant had requested the appellate authority to sell shares and securities seized from him and appropriate the sale proceeds towards payments of arrears of taxes. 14. In the present case, there is no mistake apparent from the record, as discussed hereinabove. 15. In ITR 1970 Vol. 78 Page 26, Their Lordships of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of 'L. Hirday Narain v. ITO, Bareilly' have held that if a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act in a specified set of circumstances, it is imperative upon him to exercise his authority in a manner appropriate to the case when a party interested and having a right to apply moves in that behalf and circumstances for exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment and collection of revenue, and the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred upon him to ensure that injustice to the assessee or to the Revenue may be avoided. It is implicit in the nature of the power and its entrustment to the authority invested with quasi-judicial functions under the Act, that exercise of the power was discretionary and the Income-tax from the record is brought to his notice by a person concerned with or interested in the proceeding." The High Court was, in our judgment, in error in assuming that exercise of the power was discretionary and the Income-tax Officer could, even if the conditions for its exercise were shown to exist, decline to exercise the power." 16. In AIR 2007 S.C. 668, their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court in the matter of 'CIT Bhopal v. Ralson Industries Ltd.' have held that u/s 154 of the Act, the order of rectification can be passed only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Their Lordships have further held that there is a difference between the review and rectification. Their Lordships have held as under: - "8. The scope and ambit of a proceeding for rectification of an order under Sec....