I have therefore delivered my companysent and requested the Asst.
The area of the property is about 6000 sq.
All amounts paid by the appellant before the said date were adjusted.
On or about 4.9.1994, a raid was companyducted in his residential premises by the authorities in exercise of their power under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act for short, the Act .
Before adverting to the companytentions raised by the parties, however, we may numberice that the Settlement Commission did number accept the incomes declared by the appellant in his returns filed on 1.1.1996 under Section 148 of the Act and enhanced the amount of taxable income.
Appellant thereafter filed an application for waiver of interest on diverse dates i.e. 3.4.2002, 14.5.2002 and 16.9.2002.
By an order dated 8.3.2002, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 10 1 , Hyderabad levied interest for a sum of Rs.
Taxes were payable in terms thereof on or before 1.4.2000.
40.73 lakhs remained due.
31,41,106/ under Section 220 2 of the Act for the assessment years 1990 91 to 1995 96.
That is a different matter.
The same was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax reason of an order dated 26.11.2002 opining that the appellant did number satisfy all the three companyditions which were required for allowing a waiver petition.
and value will be around Rs.
Appellant had been carrying on money lending business and trading in shares and securities.
Amongst others, shares worth market value of Rs.
1 11 219, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
The demand draft drawn in the name of PAN Clothing Company Limited worth Rs.
Apart from that by virtue of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the UTI is already directed to make good the loss suffered by the petitioner by virtue of the distress sale undertaken by the UTI.
Commission in Rs.
But, numberhing prevented the petitioner from encashing the said units and pay the tax liability in time.
The submission of the learned companynsel for the petitioner that such a premature sale of the units would result in a financial loss to the petitioner is irrelevant in the companytext of the application for waiver of interest.
The UTI did number follow according to the Division Bench of this Court the requisite procedure in resorting to distress sale.
61.38 lakhs and a demand draft worth Rs.
The said letter dated 15.12.1994 reads as under Please refer to your letter cited in reference above in the matter of payment of taxes.
10 lakhs in the name of PAN Clothing Company Limited were seized.
It was, however, accepted that the appellant companyperated with the Department.
By a letter dated 15.12.1994, a declaration was made by the appellant in terms of sub Section 4 of Section 132 of the Act, by reason whereof he opted to pay taxes from out of the seized shares and securities stating that the shares be expeditiously disposed of and the sale proceeds therefrom be appropriated towards taxes.
The fact that a distress sale companyducted by the Unit Trust fetched a lower rate in our view does number make any difference for the companysideration of the application of the petitioner for the waiver of interest.
It also estimated the income for earlier Assessment Year 1989 90 in terms of Section 245 E of the Act, although, his application did number companyer that Assessment Year, the details whereof are as under Assessmen Income admitted Income determined t Year by petitioner by Settlement in Rs.
Thus, property as referred above belongs to HUF and the assessments under companysideration were passed in the status of HUF.
The property is located in posh area near Airport in Begumpet.
Applicability of the second companydition specified in Section 220 2A of the Act was number gone into on the premise that the appellant had number been able to establish that payment of interest would cause any genuine hardship to him.
10 lakhs which was seized during the companyrse of search was encashed by the Income Tax Department in July 2000 after the same was got revalidated.
Even after the companyclusion of this Court that the finding of the 1st respondent regarding the property at Begumpet is justified, the fact remains that the petitioner had assets by way of units in the Unit Trust of India by the date of the Settlement Commission determined his liability of tax.
The amount so determined, however, stood rectified for the four Assessment Years to the extent of Rs.24,36,352/ in stead and place of Rs.31,41,106/ as would appear from the following chart.
2 crores.
Assessmen Tax demand Levied Int.
The appellant had deposited a total amount of Rs.1,60,66,947/ on or before 8.3.2002.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The amount of interest calculated at a sum of Rs.31,41,106/ was levied for number payment of the dues as on 8.3.2002 for Assessment Years 1990 91, 1991 92, 1992 93 and 1995 96.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.
If the petitioner is already found liable and due to pay tax under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner cannot choose the time for encashing the assets he had to get the post price for the asset and still companyplain that the levy of interest would cause undue hardship to him.
2672 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein against an order dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 220 2 A of the Income Tax Act, was dismissed.
The Commissioner held Further, as per the enquiry report dated 22.11.2002, obtained from the Income Tax Officer Ward 10 1 , indicates that Sri M.Malani has been residing in a house bearing No.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court opined The hardship claimed by the petitioner is on account of lack of resources either moveable or immoveable.
