TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isations having different partnership firm and company and businesses in respect of their assessments for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. 2. The short facts, for consideration, are that there were disputes among the partners and family members. They were all partners in various partnership concerns as well as Directors in the companies, shareholders in the companies and as there were two groups in respect of business concerns, there were loggerheads between them and that accounts were not finalised the returns for the partnership organisations were not finalised and filed. Consequently, as per then provision available, without the contribution from the partnership firms accounts of the individual could not also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions are commonly filed on the same ground in respect of all the petitioners. 3. Mr. R. Sathiamoorthy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department has filed detailed counters in all the cases and specifically pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed by them as waiver of interest will be only attracted if the conditions prescribed in the circular is followed and if it is available to the concerned petitioners, and therefore, they have no case at all for challenging the order. At the same time, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department fairly brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent order dated 26.06.2006 under Order F.No.400....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order passed in the case of this group, the Chief Commissioner, Chennai, by his proceedings C.No.CCA/105(14)/CBE/1998-99, dated 31.10.2000 in respect of other group interpreting the Board's order F.No.400/234/95-IT(B), dated 23.05.1996 and ordered it is applicable and did not waive the total interest under Section 234 (A) (B) and (C) of the Act, but they have reduced the interest under Section 234 (A) and (B) restricted to the extent of 10% for all the assessment years and insofar as the claim under Section 234 (c) was rejected. 6. But, it was also clearly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that this order was not brought to the notice of the Joint Chief Commissioner when the impugned order was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and decided in accordance with this Order. If any petition in the past was allowed in accordance with the Orders under Section 119(2)(a) dated 23.05.1996 and 30.01.1997, such Orders allowing waiver should not be reopened/revised as per the guidelines contained in this Order." 7. On a reading of this Clause 4, it is very clear that if any petition in that case has been rejected because the Board has not issued a direction, earlier such petition may be reconsidered and decided in accordance with this order. Therefore, where a case for waiver of interest has been rejected by the officer prior to the coming into force of this CBDT order, it is always open for an assessee to bring to the notice of the concerned Chief Commissioner ....