Case Law Details
Manigandan Rice Mill Vs Chief CIT (Madras High Court)- Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions submitted that it is true that the Chief Commissioner, who offered opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 21-3-2016 and on 24-3-2016 is not the Chief Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order. The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide. Therefore, by applying the said principle to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to send back the matter for fresh consideration before the first respondent, on the plea for waiver of interest under section 220(2) and rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-
Heard Mr. A.S. Sriraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 19-9-2016 for the assessment year 2003-2004 and for a direction to the first respondent to waive interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 220(2) and rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. This Court, on 18-7-2017, elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and passed the following order :–
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
