2025:BHC-OS:674-DB WP-1363.21(F).DOCX Pradnya IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1363 OF 2021 Jitendra M. Doshi (Deceased) ]

]

1] Dina Jitendra Doshi, (Spouse) ]

Age – 73, ]

2] Deepa Jitnedra Doshi, (Daughter) ]

Age – 48 ]

3] Janak Jitendra Doshi, (Son) ]

Age – 38 ]

]

All residing at 1802, Tower 1, ] Green Ridge Society, Link Road, ] Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092 ]

]

4] Chhaya Nitin Vora (Married Daugher) ]

Age – 38 ] Residing at 201, Vasant Cottage, ] 2^nd Floor, Carter Road No.2, ]

Borivali (East), Mumbai 400 066 ]…Petitioners Versus

1] Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ]

Central – 1, Mumbai ] Room No.108, ] Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, ] Mumbai – 400 020 ]

]

2] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ]

Central Circle – 2(3), Mumbai ]

(Erstwhile : Dy. CIT – C.C. - 9, Mumbai) ] Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, ] Mumbai – 400 020 ]

3] Tax Recovery Officer ]

Central -1, Mumbai ] (Erstwhile: T.R.O – Cen. - 2, Mumbai) ] 904, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, ] Old CGO Annexe, Maharishi Karve ] Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ]

]

4] Union of India, ]

Through the Commissioner of ] Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai ] Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ]

Mumbai – 400 020 ]...Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. P J Pardiwala, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal i/by Mr. Sudhakar G Lakhani, for the Petitioners.

Mr Suresh Kumar, for the Respondents.

______________________________________________________

CORAM M.S. Sonak &

Jitendra Jain, JJ.

Reserved on : 14 January 2025 Pronounced on : 16 January 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner, and after his demise, the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner challenge order dated 28 February 2020 (Exhibit ‘J’) made by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I rejecting the petitioner’s application for waiver of interest under Section

220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”).

4. Mr Pardiwala, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted that on 26 July 2007, after a search, the Petitioner's movable assets like gold bars, jewellery, investments and cash aggregating to Rs.71,35,730/- were seized. As the proceedings for assessment ended on 8 March 2010, the Petitioner requested the Assessing Officer ("AO") to encash the seized investments and adjust the proceeds towards the tax demand. On 20 September 2013, Petitioner reiterated this request. This time, the Petitioner also requested the AO to sell the gold and other jewellery that had been seized.

5. Mr Pardiwala submitted that the above request was repeatedly reiterated. However, the AO did not take steps to dispose of the seized assets and adjust them against the tax demands. He pointed out that as a result, the Petitioner suffered losses on account of interest, etc. He submitted that the Petitioner, a senior citizen, had to sell his property to settle the tax demand. He also submitted that the Petitioner was suffering from some ailments.

6. Mr Pardiwala submitted that on 4 February 2019, the Petitioner filed an application seeking a waiver of interest levied on the Petitioner under Section 220(2) by referring to several factual circumstances. This application was made under Section 220(2A) of the IT Act. Mr Pardiwala pointed out that the application was rejected by the impugned order dated 28 February 2020. Hence, this Petition.

7. Mr Pardiwala submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner's application is for reasons that are irrelevant, factually incorrect, and legally untenable. He submitted that since the Petitioner was not required to make balance-sheet, there was no question of the Petitioner being required to produce such a balance sheet. He submitted that the Petitioner properly disclosed the source of Rs.91.83 lakhs. The finding about Petitioner having some agricultural income fails to notice t