TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd penalty against the petitioner, Sangram Singh Mehta for the assessment year 1966-67. The petitioner was unable to meet the said demand on account of various reasons mentioned in the writ petition and subsequently the petitioner moved an application dated March 7, 1986 (annexure A), before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, for waiver of interest under sections 217 and 220 of the Income-tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that on the said application after deliberation, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, on March 29, 1988, sent a communication to the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, which is at page 127 and which was filed along with the additional affidavit on September 14, 2005, before this court which reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and the cheque would not be realised before the said date, on the request of the income-tax authorities, the petitioner submitted a cash challan for the deposit of the amount of Rs. 49,349 on March 30, 1988 and the same was deposited after being duly verified and authorised by the income-tax authorities on March 30, 1988, itself. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner acted on the basis of the order that was sent on March 29, 1988, by the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, and was waiting for formal order for waiving of the penalty and interest as has been indicated in the said letter that these would be passed after the cheque is, cleared and the amount is collected. However, no such order was passed in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is this order, annexure I, dated September 11, 1991, which the petitioner has challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner in paras 12 and 13 of the writ petition has given the factual position with regard to the assurance being given to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the consequential order dated March 29, 1988, giving details of the said letter which was written by the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Income-tax Officer. This had become necessary because in the order, annexure I, dated September 11, 1991, the respondents had clearly stated that no assurance had been given to the petitioner; even no reference to the letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 29, 1988, was mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e specifically pleaded that the respondent No. 2, vide his letter No. J/IT/VD/220(2)12/87-88/3369, dated March 29, 1988, to the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, had instructed to send the cheque to the bank immediately for collection and assured for making formal order for waiving interest and penalties after the cheque was cleared. The respondents in their reply denied this fact, vide para No. 13. The petitioners have reiterated the said pleadings in their rejoinder. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the original record including the aforementioned letter dated March 29, 1988. The respondents shall also permit petitioner No. 1, Shri Sangram Singh Mehta, to inspect the record in this case....