TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the income-tax department out of the amounts paid in the years preceding the assessment year 1947-48. In the assessment form, which is annexure B to the affidavit accompanying the petition, the total tax demand against the petitioner including income-tax and super-tax for 1947-48 was worked out at ₹ 35,792-5-0. Credit was given to the petitioner for a sum of ₹ 7,415-5-0 as well as for a sum of ₹ 359 as interest on the aforesaid sum which was refundable to the petitioner. Thereafter the tax demand was reduced to ₹ 28,038. As admittedly no amount was paid by the petitioner towards advance income-tax, a sum of ₹ 4,805 was determined as payable by the petitioner as interest under section 18A. The date of assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the preceding years, the demand for advance payment of tax was liable to be adjusted against the amounts refundable. As such, there was no failure on his part to make payment of advance income-tax due from him and as such he should not have been made liable for payment of any interest. Learned counsel for the income-tax department has conceded that the levy of interest does not come within the purview of section 18A(6) or section 18A(7). He has, however, submitted that it clearly falls within the purview of section 18A(8), the provisions of which are as follows: Where, on making the regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer finds that no payment of tax has been made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were payable under the notice of demand under section 18A on certain specified dates. It is a different matter that certain money may have been refundable to the petitioner. It may be that these monies may have been adjusted against the demand for advance payment of income-tax, but that would not make the sum refundable and/or adjusted, a payment in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section . The sums might be refundable as learned counsel himself says under section 49E of the Income-tax Act, but a refund under section 49E or its adjustment towards his liability for payment of advance income-tax would not be a payment as contemplated in sub-section (8) and in any case an application for that purpose will have to be made. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of interest. It follows that there is no substance in the second point also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Behari, learned counsel for the income-tax department, has invited my attention to a case of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer, Alwaye v. Asok Textiles Ltd. [1961] 41 I.T.R. 732, 736; [1961] 3 S.C.R. 236 It is true, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the point was not directly before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after having quoted the provisions of sub-section (8), goes on to observe as follows: Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was required to calculate the interest in the manner provided under the provision of that sub-section and had to add it to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est complained against was entered. Section 30, which is the provision in the Act, providing for appeals makes no provision for an appeal against liability in respect of the payment of interest under section 18A(8). This matter may have been one of some doubt until 1953, when this court in the case in Pt. Deo Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1953] 23 I.T.R. 226 decided that no appeal lay in respect of interest under section 18A. The petitioner went in pursuing utterly incompetent and futile proceedings by way of appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. To my mind there was no justification at all for wasting time in filing those useless appeals. Since this court had decided in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
