1996 (8) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the waiver or reduction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) and section 273 of the Act. I have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the respondents. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The facts are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on the residential premises of the partners of the assessee firm and their family members on September 8 and 9, 1983. The petitioner and its partners wanted an amicable settlement and, therefore, they met the Commissioner of Income-tax who visited Farrukhabad shortly after the search. Ultimately, it was agreed that the petitioner would offer the following addition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tay or compound any proceeding for the recovery of any such amount, if he is satisfied that--- (i) to do otherwise would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, having regard to the circumstances of the case ; and (ii) the assessee has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him. " The Commissioner, by the impugned order, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for waiver/reduction of the penalties on the ground that the same were levied according to the settlement arrived at between the assessee and the Revenue. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner having co-operated in the assessment proceedings, it was entitled to waiver of the penalties in the e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... settlement and enjoys the benefits conferred thereby cannot be allowed to turn around subsequently and claim a further waiver or reduction. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Shital Prasad v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 259 in which one of the judges held that the Commissioner has the power to review his order passed under section 273A of the Act while the other judge held that he had no such power of review but in spite of having once exercised that power he retains that power to be exercised at any subsequent stage up to the recovery proceedings. There was, thus, no unanimity on the point but both the judges agreed that in the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Commissione....