ORDER
P. Venkatarama Reddy, J. – The petitioner has assailed the order dated 25-1-1989 passed by the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, rejecting his rcquest for waiver of interest under section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1979-80. As far as the claim lot waiver based on section 220(2A) is concerned, there is a clear finding to the effect that the petitioner could not establish any genuine hardship in not paying the tax and the said finding cannot be interfered with under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, one of the pre-requisites for granting relief under the said section is not satisfied. At the same time, the petitioner also made a request for waiver of 50 per cent of interest under a scheme known as Time Window Scheme formulated by the CBDT on 5-7-1988. As per the scheme, the assessee in whose case certification to the TRO was sent by 31-3-1986 will be entitled to a rebate of 50 percent of the interest chargeable under section 220(2) if he makes full payment of arrears together with 50 per cent of the interest within stipulated time. The Commissioner noted that the said condition has not been satisfied as regards the arrears of tax due for the year 1973-74 are concerned. With regard to the year 1979-80, the learned Commissioner observed that there wits no interest payable under section 220(2) by the time the scheme came into force and, therefore, the question of allowing relief under the scheme does not arise.
2. Concentrating on the question of remission of interest for the year 1973-74, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with much force that there is no logic nor rationale for denying the relief to tile assessee in whose case the certificate was not forwarded to the TRO despite the fact that the arrears were old. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner shall not suffer any disadvantage on account of fortuitous circumstance of the Income Tax Officer not taking steps to send the certificate to the TRO. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has already paid 50 per cent of the. interest. This contention of the learned counsel raises the question as to the validity of the restriction imposed in the scheme or in the alternative the scope of relief which could still be granted under the scheme. As regards the former aspect, i.e., regarding the vahdity of the condition imposed, as there is no direct challenge to the circular, we are not inclined to go into that question at this distance of time. However, whether the terms of the scheme promulgated by the CBDT can be so extended as to afford relief in genuine cases such as that of the petitioner, have to be more appropriately considered by thee CBDT which has framed this scheme, keeping in view the spit-it and objective of the scheme.
3. We are, therefore, inclined to permit the petitioner to make a representrator to the CBDT within a month’s lime and the same shall be disposed of with expedition keeping in view all the relevant factors. We direct that the proceedings for recovery of the balance interest shall be kept ill abeyance for a period of four months. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.