A.M. MOOSA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext.P7 order. For the assessment year 92-93, the claim of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act was finally held against the petitioner by Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. Thereafter the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 consequential order and the assessing officer passed Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 order, the assessing officer also levied interest as provided under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P6 application under Section 220(2A) of the Act seeking waiver of the interest levied. On that application, petitioner was heard and finally the Commissioner passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the application. It is this order which is challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 order as contained in para 4 thereof reads as under;

(3.) IN so far as this case is concerned, in my view, the first condition of genuine hardship has not been proved by the petitioner. The findings in Ext.P7 extracted above shows that the assessee had cash balance, amounts due from the debtors, amount due towards export incentives and also substantial assets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has proved genuine hardship which is a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of Section 220(2A) of the Act. Therefore the view taken by the Commissioner in Ext.P7 cannot be said to be illegal.