7.In the case on hand, the petitioner has stated that his accounts were being taken care by his father, who died in the year 1991, but the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme came into force in the year 1997 only. Therefore, by stating that his father was looking after the tax affairs of the petitioner and that there was strained relationship between his brother, cannot be a ground to waive the interest, which was rightly imposed by the 2nd respondent. In the absence of any acceptable reason given by the petitioner, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the Managing Partner of the Firm fell ill and subsequently, he died due to brain cancer and hence, the petitioner Firm could not pay the tax as demanded. In the case on hand, the petitioner has thrown the blame on his father and his brother for not paying the tax in time. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable reason shown by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had rightly rejected the petition. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is just and proper.
