High Court Of Kerala
N. Gopalakrishnan vs. CIT & ANR.
Sections 220(2), 220(2A)
Kurian Joseph, J.
Original Petn. No. 5323 of 1997
17th August, 2005
Counsel Appeared
P. Gopalakrishnan Nair, for the Petitioner : P.K. Ravindranatha Menon & George K. George, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
KURIAN JOSEPH, J. :
Challenge is on Ext. P6 order passed by the CIT. It is an order passed in an application for waiver of interest under s. 220(2A) of the IT Act. It is now settled law that for considering an application for waiver, the CIT gets jurisdiction only if all the three conditions are satisfied (see judgment in G.T.N. Textile Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT & Anr. (1995) 127 CTR (Ker) 11 : (1996) 217 ITR 653 (Ker). It is seen from Ext. P6 as well as the detailed statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not co-operating with the Department in the matter of recovery. Untenable contentions had been taken when steps for recovery were taken. The Department has also a stand that the recovery officers were even misled. Though there is yet another contention in the statement that the payment of the amount did not cause undue hardship to the petitioner, that is not reflected in Ext. P6. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to that contention. Since the third condition regarding co-operation is not satisfied, the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter on merits. Since the CIT has formed the opinion and entered the satisfaction as above, it cannot be said that the order is passed on no material or that the order is unreasonable. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 280 ITR 592]
