TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. P2. For the year 1971-72 the petitioner was charged interest under s. 217in making the assessment as per Ext. P3. 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. P2 and P3. Those revision petitions were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tness 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 Commissioner in Ext. P6 that the Income Tax Officer's estimate of profits for the two years had not been shown to be excessive or arbitrary. The other point raised before the Commissioner relates to the levy of interest under s. 139 and 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 1evy of interest against the petitioner Company under s. 215 of the Act is also devoid of substance. The same is the position in regard to the levy of interest under s. 217 of the Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
