Wp/136/1991 Of Central Automobiles v. Commi. Of Income Tax

CF000011DB45mx-m vvvm-u.“v, WMS23 [ \]IN» T9m£ HIGH COURT OFstymHYk FWEzw ATJABALPUR.a,M;p..No. S3~€/€1IPETITIGNER:[—]Central Automobiles,‘i‘hroughz?artner 5hankerRae,Sono£Late Ehri M.S.Rao,Mahatma Gandhi Road,Ragga; (mm).VER$USRE$I>ONDENT:-Commiksioner0fIncome-tax.JAB&LF%.(M.?.).pwwyuxgu uNnER Ammm3226/227 THE CO§STITUTION [ IWXA.] i ii H CH. QQJR‘E‘ QF €Hr§ATT$G$FH1 T 3iLASPLaW $angie 5mm,:Han’Wa shn M LQwi;{:4 W§i€ Pe‘citim‘a‘ N$K§3§3 «13f€§§€ Cet tra!AmcmcbilaThrcugh'IMSParweSnankerRae,Sonof LateShriIsa;Mahatma Gandhi Raad, Raipur (MP) Vs“Commissionerax‘income—iax,Jabaipuri(MP) @§$?GN§EN‘¥ Pwticn under A*tlcie<‘ 226,227 ofthe Cnnsiihn‘énn nfi‘ndia Ps’e$c~;nt:Name present far[“me] petitioner.(mmmam“?o; I‘E&;§§;2%?) {Paasgd Tim peiiiimer is carrying m the msmess of saie of Jaep Cw“,i raiiors,Tractnrs: Pumps aw Agrmulium‘ir‘cias atRaipur and is assessed £0 payincome-Tax,byiheinoometaxOffiear{Assessmeii~i),Raipur,farthea$SeSsmentyearaa1§7ix72to1975-76,1§78—79,1979~8Dand1984-85.itapears that the petiiim"hamI”d an appiication for waiver 9f penaity under(I) (DO”tOns 27’!{1)(a)[and][ 273](a)[of'the ire]1a)! Acl96iThose applicatianshave been reiec‘ted by the reepondeni.Beimg aggrieved by the eaid actiori 0f the'Qfreepeneentinre'ecting the appiications for Waiverpena‘ty,itisbefore ihieVreiiefs:Caurt for the foiicwingThey are as under: “(A)Todirect merespopemtreducetherecerde or the case: {8)[Te][ hole:][ that][ the]petitisner[was][ entitled][ tc] waiver3fpehaitiee[and][ intereete][ for][ the][ above—eaici]aesesementwears,> inaccordance whittheerovieiane0fSection273 ia‘wh(C)[To]qi twe Order or the Commissio'ier or ihcor'ie.rLax,(Anhx! [Ire]C)arid to direr‘r[him]to parse an Greerwaivinghe penaitiee and intereezs, for the abcve-saidaseeeemerit years (D)Topaee [such]other order eroreei‘s,writorwrite,direction or directione, as thie Hoh’bie Court deems tit,"ih[The]crowds annee or the case {2)in my opinionif for any reagon, the respondent ha3 rejecied theapasaiionsl fiied by the petitioner for waiver of penam‘es,it has’éo question theSame before the Higher Authority preecribed under the Act.For that purpoee,i'icould not some before this Court for any direction.i do no? see any good ground“:o en&er‘tain this writ petitionAccordingiy. the wrii peiition requires {o be rejecteandit is rejected.Ordered accordingly