1. VEERASWAMI, J.-This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash an order of the first respondent, the Central Board of Revenue, dated April 26, 1962. The petitioner is a private limited company and for the assessm ent year 1959-60, it was charged to a penal interest of Rs,. 9,176'09 under section 18-A(6) and (7) of the Income-tax Act,. 1922. That order was dated September 1, 1960.
2. On August 30, 1961, an applica--petition was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer relating to the penal interest but it was dismissed by him on November 30, 1961, on a technical ground. He posed for his decision two points : (1) in regard to the validity of 'the revision petition and (2) whether the levy of penal interest was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. On his view on the first point, he did hot decide the second. He thought that a revision under proviso (c) to section 33-A(2) of the Act would not lie to him. In taking that view he purported to follow C. Gnanasundara Nayagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax ((1961)
3. 41 I T R 375 On that view, the petition is allowed. We may mention that the affidavit in support of the petition covers the merits of the levy of penal interest. But inasmuch as the Commissioner himself did not go into that matter on the view he took as to the maintainability of the revision petition, we do not propose to deal with it either. The result is the Commissioner will have to dispose of the revision petition afresh on its merits. We may also observe that, though the Commissioner's order was taken up on a petition to the Central Board of Revenue, the latter has disposed of the matter on the view that it had no authority to interfere with the Commissioner's order. That order being not on the merits, it does not even require to be quashed formally. No costs.