Judgment :- 1. The petitioner before me is a firm of contractors carrying on business as such in Angamaly. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 the petitioner had been assessed to Income-tax as per the orders evidenced by Exts. P-2 and P-3 passed by the Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Ernakulam. In making those assessments the net profit derived by the petitioner from the contract relating to the construction work of certain buildings for the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. was estimated by the Income-tax Officer at 121/2% of the total bills received by the assessee in the place of 9.5% which the assessee had shown in his return and consequential additions were made to the income returned by the assessee in computing the total assessable income. The petitioner was also charged interest under S.139 and 215 in the assessment order Ext. P-2. For the year 1971-72 the petitioner was charged interest under S.217in making the assessment as per Ext. P-3. No appeals were preferred by the petitioner against either of these orders of assessment, but two revisions were filed by the petitioner-Company before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam in March 1973 questioning the assessments made as per Exts P-2 and P-3. Those revision petitions were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax as per his order Ext. P-6, wherein he held that the Income-tax Officer's estimation of profit for the two years was not in any way excessive and that in charging interest under S.139 and 215 for the year 1970-71 and under S.217 for the assessment year 1971-72 the Income-Tax Officer had not committed any illegality since none of the circumstances which would warrant any waiver or reduction of interest under the relevant provisions contained in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 had been made out by the assessee. The petitioner has brought this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P-6. 2. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner endeavoured hard to make out that in estimating the profit derived by the assessee from the contract relating to the construction work referred to above at 121/2 of the whole amount, the Income-tax Officer bad acted arbitrarily and that in refusing to grant relief in respect of the said matter the Commissioner of Income-tax had illegally failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction reposed in him. I did not find it possible to accept this contention. I did not find it possible to accept this contention. In disposing of the revision petitions filed before him the Commissioner of Income-tax has duly adverted to the above facts, but he did not feel satisfied on a consideration of the materials available on record that the estimate made by the Income-Tax Officer can legitimately be characterised as excessive or arbitrary. In a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution this Court will not examine the correctness of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer, but would only enquire as to whether there was a proper application of the mind of the Commissioner to the case put forward before him by the assessee. It cannot be said in this case that the Commissioner has not applied his mind to the contention raised before him by the assessee in its revision petitions. Such being the position there is no scope for any interference by this Court with the finding arrived at by the Income-tax Commisioner in Ext. P-6 that the Income-tax Officer's estimate of profits for the two years had not been shown to be excessive or arbitrary. 3. The other point raised before the Commissioner relates to the levy of interest under S.139 and 215 for the year 1970-71 and S.217 for the year 1971-72. It was contended by the petitioner that no opportunity had been given to the Company by the Income-tax Officer to show cause against levy of such an interest. Under S.129 sub-section (8) where the return for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date the assessee is automatically made liable to pay simple interest at 12% per annum reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date to the date of the furnishing of the return. Under the proviso to that section the Income-tax Officer is empowered to reduce or waive the interest payable by any assessee under the said sub-section only "in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed". The cases and the circumstances in which reduction or waiver of interest may be allowed by the Income-tax Officer have been specified in R.117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is not contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case will come within any categories mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of the said Rule. The cases and the circumstances in which reduction or waiver of interest may be allowed by the Income-tax Officer have been specified in R.117A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is not contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case will come within any categories mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of the said Rule. There is, however, clause (v) of that Rule which authorises the Income-tax Officer to reduce or waive interest under S.139 "in any case in which the assessee produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer that be was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time". Interest at the rate specified under the section automatically becomes payable by the assessee when the return for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date. The said provision must be taken to be known to the assessee and in case he wanted to escape from the said liability for interest by bringing his case within the scope of clause (v) of R.117A it is his duty to put forward such a plea before the Income-tax Officer and produce and prove to the satisfaction of the officer that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time. In the absence of any such plea being put forward by the assessee there is no obligation cast by law on the Income-tax Officer to call upon the assessee to show cause why interest should not be charged against him under S.139 (8); the liability to be subjected to the charge of such interest is automatically generated in every case where a delayed return is filed. The petitioner's contention that the Income tax Officer ought to have given him an opportunity to show cause against the levy of such interest is therefore devoid of merit and the attack against the order Ext. P-6 on the ground that the Commissioner has failed to uphold the said objection raised before him has only to be rejected 4. The petitioner's contention that the Income tax Officer ought to have given him an opportunity to show cause against the levy of such interest is therefore devoid of merit and the attack against the order Ext. P-6 on the ground that the Commissioner has failed to uphold the said objection raised before him has only to be rejected 4. Similar is the position in respect of the objections raised by the petitioner against the interest levied under S.215 for the year 1970-71 and under S.21 'for the year 1971-72 Under S.215 of the Act in every case where advance tax paid by the assessee under S.212 on the basis of his own estimate is less than 75% of the assessed tax, simple interest at the rate of 9% (subsequently amended as 12% with effect from 1-4-1972) per annum from the 1st day of April next following the concerned financial year up to the date of the regular assessment shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the advance-tax so paid falls short of the assessed tax. It is not disputed that in respect of the year 1970-71 the advance tax paid by the assessee on the basis of his own estimate was less than 75% of the tax assessed under Ext. P-2. In such circumstances, the liability for interest automatically accrued under S.215. Under Sub-section (4) of S.215, the Income-tax Officer is empowered to reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee under the said section only "in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed". The cases and circumstances in which the Income-tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest are specified in R.40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of any of the categories enumerated in clauses (1) to (5) of R.41. Hence, the contention that the Commissioner ought to have interfered with the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in so far as they relate to the levy of interest against the petitioner-Company under S.215 of the Act is also devoid of substance. 5. Hence, the contention that the Commissioner ought to have interfered with the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in so far as they relate to the levy of interest against the petitioner-Company under S.215 of the Act is also devoid of substance. 5. The same is the position in regard to the levy of interest under S.217 of the Act which lays down that in cases where on making the regular assessment the Income-tax Officer finds that any such person as is referred to in Sub-s. (3) of S.212 has not sent the estimate referred to therein, simple interest at this rate of 9% (altered as 12% with effect from 14 72) per annum from the 1st day of April next following the financial year in which the advance-tax was payable in accordance with the said sub-section up to the date of the regular assessment shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount equal to the assessed tax. By sub-section (2) of this section the provisions of Sub-section (4) of S.215 empowering the Income-tax Officer to reduce or waive the interest in respect of those cases and under those circumstances as may be prescribed have been made applicable to interest payable under this Section also. R.40 therefore is the relevant rule governing the grant of the benefit of waiver or reduction of interest payable under this section also. It has already been found that the petitioner's case does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in clauses (1) to (5) of R.40. Hence there is no merit in the petitioner's contention that the Commissioner ought to have interfered with the assessment: order Ext. P3 passed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1971-72 in so fas as he levied interest from the petitioner under S.217 of the Act. All the contentions raised by the petitioner have been found to be untenable. This writ petition has only to be dismissed and I do so, but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Dismissed.