REDDY, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of the CIT dt. 28th Feb., 1979 under S. 273A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act').
(2.) THE petitioner is an individual. He filed return for the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1971-72 and order of assessment was made. Subsequently, on 20th Sept., 1971, he made a voluntary disclosure and filed return for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1968-69 and revised returns with respect to the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73. Simultaneously, he filed a petition under sub-s. (4A) of S. 271 of the Act. The ITO accepted the return filed by the petitioner with respect to the asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1968-69. With respect to the subsequent years, he issued notices under S. 147/148 of the Act, accepted the returns and made assessment. According to the petitioner, his revised returns were accepted. Penalties were also levied on the petitioner. Now coming to the petition under S. 271 (4A) filed by the petitioner, the CIT by his order dt. 23rd Jan., 1975 waived the penalties levied under S. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1968- 69 and 1972-73. So far as the petition relating to years 1969-70 to 1971-72 is concerned, he dismissed it infructuous evidently, because no penalties were levied under S. 271(1) (a) for those years. We may mention that in his petition filed under S. 271(4A), the petitioner had prayed for 'waiving penalties and penal provision'. Evidently, because the only penalties imposed by the CIT's order (22nd Jan., 1975) were under S. 271(1)(a), the CIT's dealt with those penalties only in his order. However, after the CIT's order dt. 22nd Jan., 1975, the ITO levied penalties under S. 271(1) (c) by his orders dt. 16th Nov., 1976/7th Feb., 1977. It appears that interest was also levied under ss. 139(8) and 217 of the Act. The petitioner then filed the application (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) in March 1977 for waiving the penalties levied under S. 271(1)(c) and also to waive interest amounts levied under ss. 139(8) and 217. This application has been dismissed by the CIT under his order dt. 28th Feb., 1979, impugned herein.
(3.) THE main ground upon which the CIT has dismissed the petition is that the matter involved in the petition filed by the petitioners 'stands closed' by the order dt. 22nd Jan., 1975. The order does not say anything about the interest amount levied under ss. 139A and 217 of the Act.;