TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2017 of the learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein impugning Exts. P11 and P16 orders. Ext. P11 was an order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for brevity, CBDT) in an application filed by the appellant under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Ext. P16 was the demand notice issued by the Income Tax Authorities based on the settlement arrived at before the Settlement Commission in Ext.P5 order. The essential grievance of the appellant as projected in the writ petition was with regard to the demand of interest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Settlement Commission did not have the power to grant relief of waiver of interest under Section 119(2)(a) and the said power to grant waiver of interest lay only with the CBDT. As regards the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A), the appellant had erroneously assumed that the interest under this provision was levied in terms of Section 220(2) of the Act, and therefore, had approached the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax with Ext. P17 petition under Section 220(2A) of the Act seeking waiver of interest and the said authority had not passed any order thereon. 4. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter rejected the contentions of the appellant inter alia on the finding that the levy of interest under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to file only a belated return pursuant to a notice under Section 158BC of the Act. He specifically adverts to Ext.P3 and similar representations preferred by him before the Income Tax Department seeking extension of time to file return stating therein that the documents, on the basis of which a true and complete return could be filed, had been seized by the Sales Tax Department and thereafter requisitioned by the Income Tax Department under Section 132A of the Act. In substance, the contention of the appellant is that for the delay occasioned by the Income Tax Authorities in furnishing the required documents that were in their possession to him, he could not be penalized with the demand of interest for the said delay. It is also his conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the levy of interest under Section 158 BFA of the Act for the period in question was automatic once it was found that the returns that led to the finalisation of the assessment were filed only on 01.05.2000, well beyond the period provided under statute for filing the said return. It is further pointed out that in terms of Section 119(2)(a) of the Act the exercise of discretion to waive interest under Section 158BFA can be only in relation to a class of cases and not to individual cases since it would go against the expressed provisions of the statute and also against the object behind those provisions that are designed to prevent interference by the Board with the discretion of quasi-judicial authorities engaged in assessment of ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnished by them in the impugned order, we are of the view that it would be an exercise of futility for the appellant does not fall under any class of cases in respect of which alone the CBDT can exercise its discretion to grant waiver of the interest demanded. As regards the demand of interest under Section 245D(6A), we find that the said interest is levied for the delayed payment of the tax determined as payable by the Settlement Commission, which was a forum chose by the appellant himself for settlement of the dispute with the Income Tax Department. The provision being part of the Code under Chapter XIX-A of the Act, the interest levied thereunder cannot be waived since it has to be seen as forming an integral part of the Settlement that....