AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 1.2.2012, Annexure P.14 passed by respondent No.1 ­ Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, whereby the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 and penalties under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") has been rejected. Further prayer for quashing the demand notice dated 26.3.2012 Annexure P.15, notice dated 19.11.1991, Annexure P.1 under Section 148 of the Act and also for refund of the interest has also been made.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is an agriculturist. His only source of income was agriculture income which did not require filing of income tax return. Vide notification dated 13.8.1979, some land of the petitioner was acquired by the Government and vide award dated 7.1.1981, compensation for the land acquired was awarded at the rate of Rs.12000/ - and Rs.15000/ - per acre for barren and irrigated land respectively. The petitioner sought enhancement by filing application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Vide order dated January 20, 1989, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.24000/ - and Rs.30,000/ - per acre for barren and irrigated land respectively alongwith interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from 7.1.1981 to 6.1.1982 and 15 percent per annum from 7.1.1982 onwards. The compensation amount was received by the petitioner on 15.9.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner after calculating the interest of each of the relevant years submitted his income tax returns voluntarily on 27.2.1991 and the said returns were duly accepted by the concerned officer under Section 143(1) of the Act on 7.8.1992. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment levied interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also passed the order for issuance of penalty notices under Sections 271(1)(a), 271 (1) (c) and 273 of the Act. The penalty proceedings were later on dropped by the Assessing Officer vide separate orders. On 12.10.1992, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 273A of the Act for waiving of interest. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak waived the penalty and interest upto 70 percent of the amount vide order dated 17.3.1993, Annexure P.5 in respect of the years 1982 -83 to 1988 -89. The application for waiver of interest for the year 1989 -90 was not entertained in view of amendment in the Act w.e.f 1.4.1989. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.15887 of 1993 against the order passed by the respondent under Section 273A of the Act. For the assessment years 1982 -83 to 1988 -89, the writ petition was allowed while relying upon the observations made by this Court in Parkash Devi vs. CWT, Jalandhar, (1983) 141 ITR 122 and the case was remitted back to the respondent to re - decide the application. The petitioner approached the respondent several times to decide the pending application but ultimately, vide impugned order dated 1.02.2012, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak while adjudicating the application under Section 273 -A of the Act on 17.3.1993 after recording that the conditions enumerated in Section 273 - A of the Act were complied with, had waived of only 70 percent of the total amount of interest and penalty, which was challenged by way of CWP No.15887 of 1993. This Court on 26.8.1996 had remanded the matter for the assessment years 1982 -83 to 1988 -89 to the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the same keeping in view the observations made in Smt. Parkash Devi's case (supra). However, the petition with regard to assessment year 1989 -90 was rejected by this Court. According to the learned counsel, after the remand by this Court, the Commissioner of Income Tax on 1.2.2012 while deciding the application under Section 273A of the Act had even withdrawn the benefit of the waiver which had been allowed to the petitioner earlier. It was urged that the said action of the respondent -CIT was in grave violation of the mandate given by this Court while deciding CWP No.15887 of 1993 on 26.8.1996.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.;