CF000011DB45 x-m vvvm-u.“ m v S23 CM \ IN» T9m£ HIGH COURT OF stymHYk FWEzw AT JABALPUR. ;p..No. S3~€ /€1I a, PETITIGNER Central Automobiles, ‘i‘hrough z ?artner 5hanker Rae, Son o£ Late Ehri M.S. Rao, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ragga; (mm). : — VER$US RE$I>ONDENT :- Commiksioner 0f Income-tax JAB&LF%. (M.?.). pwwyuxgu uNnER Ammm3 226/227 OF THE CO§STITUTION OF IWXA. , WM M . H CH. QQJR‘E‘ QF €Hr§ATT$G$FH 1 T 3iLASPLaW $angie 5mm ,: Han’Wa shn M L Qwi; {:4 W§i€ Pe‘citim‘a‘ N$K§3§3 «13f €§§€ Snanker Cet tra! Rae, Amcmcbila Son of Late Thrcugh' Shri IMSParwe Isa; Mahatma Gandhi Raad, Raipur (MP) Vs“ Commissioner ax‘ income—iax, Jabaipuri (MP) @§$?GN§EN‘¥ Pwticn under A*tlcie<‘ 226,227 ofthe Cnnsiihn‘énn nfi‘ndia Ps’e$c~;nt: Name present far “me petitioner. {Paasgd (mm o; I‘E&;§§; mam“? 2%?) Tim peiiiimer is carrying m the msmess of saie of Jaep Cw“, i raiiors, Tractnrs: Pumps aw Agrmulium‘ ir‘cia s at Raipur and is assessed £0 pay income-Tax, by ihe inoometax Offiear {Assessmeii ~ i), Raipur, far the a$SeSsment yearaa 1§7ix72 to 1975-76, 1§78—79,1979~8D and 1984-85. it ap ears that the petiiim" ham I” d an appiication for waiver 9f penaity under (I) (DO O ”t ns 27’! {1)(a) and 273 (a) of'the ire 1a)! Ac l96i Those applicatians have been reiec‘ted by the reepondeni. Beimg aggrieved by the eaid actiori 0f the reepeneent in re'ecting the appiications for Waiver 'Qf pena‘ty, it is before ihie Caurt for the foiicwing Vreiiefs: They are as under: “(A) To direct me respop em t reduce the recerde or the case: {8) Te hole: that the petitisner was entitled tc waiver 3f pehaitiee and intereete for the above—eaici aesesement the erovieiane 0f Section wears, > in accordance wh 273 (C) To qi ia‘wh twe Order or the Commissio'ier or ihcor'ie .r Lax, (Anh x! Ire C) arid to direr‘r him to parse an Greer i waiving he penaitiee and intereezs, for the abcve-said aseeeemerit years i (D)To paee such other order er oreei‘s, writ or write, i direction or directione, as thie Hoh’bie Court deems tit, ih The crowds annee or the case " it g5, {2) in my opinion if for any reagon, the respondent ha3 rejecied the apasaiions fiied by the petitioner for waiver of penam‘es, it has’éo question the l Same before the Higher Authority preecribed under the Act. For that purpoee, i'i could not some before this Court for any direction. i do no? see any good ground “:o en&er‘tain this writ petition Accordingiy. the wrii peiition requires {o be rejecte and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly