N. Gopalakrishnan vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

Kurian Joseph, J.—The challenge is to exhibit P6 order passed by the Commissioner. It is an order passed in an application for waiver of interest u/s 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is now settled law that for considering an application for waiver, the Commissioner gets jurisdiction only if all the three conditions are satisfied (see judgment in G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, . It is seen from exhibit 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 exhibit 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 the merits. Since the Commissioner 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.