Common Order: (Per The Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram v. Commissioner Of Income Tax[[1]]Or Judgmentsof The Bombay And Gujarat High Courts In Smt. Prakash Kumari V.commissioner Of Income Tax[[2]]And Parshottam Nagindas

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.16164 AND 16196 OF 2012 DATED:24.7.2012 W.P. No.16164 OF 2012Between:Chakka Nagakumar … PetitionerAnd The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.)Hyderabadand others … Respondents W.P. No.16196 OF 2012Between:Chakka Srivani … Petitioner And The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.)Hyderabadand others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.16164 AND 16196 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner in the first writ petition is the husband of thepetitioner in the second writ petition (W.P. No.16196 of 2012). Theproceedings dt.23.12.2011 and 22.12.2011 passed by the firstrespondent rejecting applications of the petitioners under Section119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) are assailedin the writ petitions. The petitioners filed applications before the Chief Commissionerof Income Tax, Visakhapatnam for waiver of interest on specifiedamounts, charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, inrespect of assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. Theseapplications were forwarded to the first respondent, who rejected theapplications by the impugned proceedings. The first respondent correctly concluded that the petitioners’plea for waiver of interest does not fall within any of the criteria set outin the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circulars dt.26.6.2006 and29.3.2011 nor do the claims of the petitioners for such waiver fall withinthe principles adumbrated in decision of the Supreme Court in JugalKishore Baldeo Sahai v. Commissioner of Income Tax[[1]]or judgmentsof the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in Smt. Prakash Kumari v.Commissioner of Income Tax[[2]]and Parshottam Nagindas v. B.R.Adwalpalkar[[3]], respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, is unable to point out any error in the exercise of the discretion by thefirst respondent in issuing the impugned orders, warrantinginterference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petitions are devoid of meritand are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRDA RAO, J24.7.2012bnr [1][1967] 63 ITR 238 (SC)[2][2010] 326 ITR 82 (Bom.)[3][1996] 218 ITR 392 (Guj.)