T.M. CHACKO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 order passed by the CIT. As per the said order, the CIT rejected the case of the petitioner for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the IT Act, 1961. The stand taken by the CIT in the impugned order is that the petitioner is having substantial immovable properties at Ponkunnam, Munnar and Kanjirappally. According to the CIT, the petitioner was not successful in establishing the case before him that the payment of interest will cause genuine hardship. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that in the background of the petitioner taking care of a destitute and sickly sister, the death of his son and all the business establishments have since been closed, etc., there is a genuine hardship.

(2.) In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the assessment for the years 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1984-85 were rectified and adjustments have already been made against the dues for 1986-87 and 1987-88 and since there was still balance, the same was paid to the petitioner. It is further stated that the assessee is in receipt of rental income to the tune of Rs. 1.32 lakhs. The assessee is also having agricultural income from the estates. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the view taken by the CIT is in anyway unjust or unreasonable. All the relevant aspects have been referred to and no irrelevant consideration has crept in while passing the impugned order.