2002 (4) TMI 221 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the order passed by CIT(A).
2. Ignoring higher authorities' orders.
3. Entitlement to interest under section 244(1A).
4. Nature of the assessment order dated 18-3-1991.
5. Justification of the claim for interest.
6. Jurisdiction of the application under section 154.
7. Maintainability of the appeal.
8. Jurisdiction and dismissal of the appeal.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed by CIT(A):
The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law. The Tribunal examined the facts and concluded that the CIT(A) had upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the assessee's application under section 154. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, thereby dismissing the appeal.

2. Ignoring Higher Authorities' Orders:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) ignored the orders of higher authorities, specifically the ITAT and the High Court of Delhi, which had held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 2-9-1987 was an assessment order under section 143(3). The Tribunal reiterated that the communication dated 2-9-1987 from the Assessing Officer was to be construed as an order under section 143(3) only for the purpose of filing an appeal, not for determining the tax liability.

3. Entitlement to Interest Under Section 244(1A):
The assessee claimed entitlement to interest under section 244(1A) from the date of assessment (2-9-1987) until the actual payment of the refund. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had granted interest from 18-3-1991 (the date of regular assessment) to 31-3-1992. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the taxes paid in August 1987 could only be treated as paid towards the regular assessment on the date of the assessment made on 18-3-1991.

4. Nature of the Assessment Order Dated 18-3-1991:
The assessee contended that the order dated 18-3-1991 was an order under section 143(3) read with section 148. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessment made on 18-3-1991 was indeed under section 143(3) read with section 148, which included the commission income offered by the assessee.

5. Justification of the Claim for Interest:
The assessee argued that the claim for interest was justified. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the interest granted from 18-3-1991 was justified. The Tribunal concluded that the taxes paid in August 1987 could not be treated as self-assessment tax since the revised return did not include the commission income.

6. Jurisdiction of the Application Under Section 154:
The assessee claimed that the application under section 154 was within jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the application under section 154 was without jurisdiction as the matter had already been decided by the appellate authorities, and the Assessing Officer's order had merged with the appellate order dated 30-6-1998.

7. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The assessee contended that the appeal was maintainable. The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground in detail but upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits, thereby implicitly confirming the non-maintainability of the appeal.

8. Jurisdiction and Dismissal of the Appeal:
The CIT(A) held that the appeal was without jurisdiction and required to be dismissed. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the amount paid on an ad hoc basis in August 1987 got converted into payments towards regular assessment on the date of assessment (18-3-1991) and not earlier.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the assessee, confirming the actions of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the view that the taxes paid in August 1987 could only be treated as paid towards the regular assessment on the date of assessment (18-3-1991), and the interest granted from 18-3-1991 was justified. The Tribunal also confirmed that the application under section 154 was without jurisdiction and the appeal was not maintainable.