High Court of Judicature at Bombay · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Bhupendra C. Dalal v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2025 ·
Bhupendra Dalal: interest-waiver rejection set aside for fresh personal hearing, evidence and speaking order; no waiver adjudicated.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
Bhupendra Dalal challenged the 21 July 2023 rejection of his application to waive interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The application relied on CBDT circulars of 23 May 1996 under section 119(2)(a) and 26 June 2006.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
After the Court noted several infirmities, Revenue agreed on instructions that the rejection could be set aside and the matter remanded. The order does not enumerate those infirmities or decide whether the circular conditions for waiver were met.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The rejection was set aside. Respondent No.1 must hear the application afresh, allow supporting material and a personal hearing, then pass a speaking order. Initial appearance was fixed for 6 November 2025. The Court requested disposal within six months from 15 October 2025; the petitioner must cooperate. The writ was disposed of without costs.
4. OUTCOME
Fresh consideration of the waiver application; no waiver of interest was itself granted.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
A fresh hearing is the relief, not a waiver
The rejection has been removed, but the authority must decide entitlement afresh. Neither Revenue’s concession nor the remand establishes satisfaction of the CBDT circular conditions.
Source: PDF p. 2
The remand has concrete procedural safeguards
The petitioner may produce supporting documents and must receive a personal hearing before a speaking order. The Court also requires full cooperation; this is not an unrestricted reopening without procedural obligations.
Source: PDF p. 2
Preserve the timing and language accurately
The initial appearance was fixed for 6 November 2025, and disposal was requested within six months from the order date. The note does not claim that a subsequent decision occurred or turn that request into an automatic waiver on expiry.
Source: PDF p. 2
Source and verification
3-page official High Court of Judicature at Bombay judgment PDF (20251015_HCBM020371312024.pdf, 136,341 bytes).
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: b048bbc0b078cb1b116cb9adcd2b65c7c7acdb5918ccaa9c7262214bee4c6cc8
Complete source text and every original page visually reviewed; identity and SHA-256 checked. AI-assisted source analysis.
The source identifies these provisions and CBDT circulars dated 23 May 1996 and 26 June 2006. It does not reproduce their eligibility conditions or decide entitlement to waiver.
Subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.