Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11966/2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are: the respondent is the Association and obtained registration from the Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 12-A(a) of the Income-Tax Act. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 26.7.1993, while dealing with the matter pertaining to assessment year 1988-89 held that respondent is the charitable trust and allowed the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Be that as it may. The respondent had filed returns of income by declaring nil income for the assessment year 1994-95 onwards till 1997-98 claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. When things stood thus, this Court while deciding the matter pertaining to some other parties in its judgment in the case of The Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. I.T.I. Employee Death Relief Fund reported in 234 ITR 308 held that the interest on investments would not be covered principles of mutuality and that therefore, the interest was not entitled for exemption. On the strength of the said judgment, the Department issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997- 98. In response to the said notice, the respondent filed revised returns, declaring income for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 after withdrawing the claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. On 3.3.1999 the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed for the year 1994-95 accepting the revised returns filed and the tax was computed at Rs.60,256/-. However, the interest under Sections 234B and 234C was also levied and for subsequent years also, the assessment orders were passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent has filed an application under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act praying for waiver of interest in respect of assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The said application had come up for consideration before the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), who in turn, has rejected the same holding that the case of the respondent does not fall under clause-2(d) of the Circular-cum-Notification dated 23rd May, 1996 and therefore, he is not the Competent Authority to consider the said request. The said application had come up for consideration before the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), who in turn, has rejected the same holding that the case of the respondent does not fall under clause-2(d) of the Circular-cum-Notification dated 23rd May, 1996 and therefore, he is not the Competent Authority to consider the said request. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the first appellant herein, respondent had filed a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11966/2006. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18th September, 2007. The learned Single Judge, has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order passed by the first appellant holding that when the respondent has got exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment year 1994-95 to 1997-98 he could not pay the taxes in advance and therefore, waiver of interest could have been allowed by the first appellant and the respondent cannot be made to pay the interest without any fault him and accordingly, quashed the impugned order therein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants felt necessitated to present this appeal. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his submission, he has taken us through the Circular-cum-Notification issued by the Competent Authority bearing F.No.400/235/95-IT(B) dated 23rd May 1996 and submitted that, the first appellant has rightly not considered the application filed by the respondent for waiver of interest and rejected the same, on the ground that the power delegated under the said Notification is for very limited purpose, which falls under Clause 2(a) to (e) mentioned therein and it is the case of the respondent that he falls under clause 2(d). Further, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Further, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, wherein the Apex Court has observed that, the Circular dated 23rd May, 1996, has empowered that the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and Director General of Income Tax may waive or reduce interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in the class of cases or class of incomes specified in clause 2 of the said order for the period and on conditions which are enumerated therein and affirmed the same. Therefore, he submitted that, as per the Circular-cum-Notification dated 23rd May, 1996, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/the Director General of Income Tax is not the Competent Authority if the case of the respondent does not fall within the said categories and the only option for him is to file necessary application before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for waiver of interest. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent interalia, substantiated the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that, learned Single Judge after due consideration of the records available on file has passed the said order and therefore, interference by this Court does not call for. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties, after going through the Circular-cum-Notification dated 23rd May, 1996 and the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the decision of the Apex Court as stated supra, including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is not in dispute that, in pursuance of the Circular-Cum-Notification dated 23rd May 1996, the power has been delegated to the Chief Commissioner Income-Tax or the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions) to waive or reduce interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, specifically, in respect of Clause 2(a) to (e) mentioned therein. It is the case of the respondent that he falls under clause 2(d) of the same. It is the case of the respondent that he falls under clause 2(d) of the same. It has been rightly pointed out by the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions) that, the case of the respondent does not fall under the said clause, on the ground that respondent has not brought any High Court or Apex Court order holding that he is entitled for the waiver of interest. But the learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that, the Appellate Tribunal has held that he is entitled for the said benefits and therefore, the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions) has got jurisdiction to consider the said request. It is clear from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, reported in (2001) 252 ITR PAGE 17, that the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions) has got jurisdiction to waive or reduce the interest in pursuance of the circular-cum-notification dated 23rd May, 1996 if the request of the respondent falls within category 2(a) to (e). But in the instant case, the case of the respondent does not fall under clause 2(d) of the said circular dated 23rd May, 1996. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered or brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge during the submissions by the respective Counsel. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11966/2006 is hereby set aside. The respondent herein is permitted to file necessary application before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Central Board of Direct Taxes is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months therefrom after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties personally or through their Counsel. All the contentions urged by both parties in this appeal are left open.