TMI Blog1957 (2) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment year is 1947-48 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1946. 3. The assessee company paid under section 18A of the Income- tax Act a sum of ₹ 12,95,508, in three equal instalments of ₹ 4,31,836, each prior to 15th March, 947. The Income-tax Officer made assessment in respect of the assessment year under reference on 30th March, 1948, on a total income of ₹ 58,71,656. The total tax liability of the assessee in respect of this assessment year amounted to ₹ 25,73,485-7-0. The assessee had already paid under section 18A ₹ 12,95,508. The Income-tax Officer further calculated interest in respect of payments made under section 18A at ₹ 33,434, and allowed the assessee a deduction of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest at two per cent. per annum on any amount payable in accordance with the provisions of this section before the 1st day of April, 1955, and paid accordingly from the date of payment to the date of provisional assessment made under section 23B, or if no such assessment has been made to the date of assessment (hereafter called the regular assessment) made under sections 23 of the income, profits and gains of the previous year for an assessment for the year next following the year in which the amount was payable. 7. It may be noted here that the sum of ₹ 6 lakhs paid by the assessee was not a payment made under section 18A. It was a payment made as a result of a demand notice issued by the Income-tax officer after completing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion raised by the Department on the ground that no application for stating a case to the High Court was made by the Commissioner of Income-tax within the period prescribed by law. As the question raised arises out of the order of the Tribunal and is a question of law, we think that it should be referred to the High Court. 10. Relying upon the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Jagadish Prasad Ramnath[*] the Departmental Representative contended that no appeal lay to the Tribunal as the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not an order made under section 31 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal disagreed with that view. In the opinion of the Tribunal, computation of interest had to be made in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 23 was completed on the 30th of March, 1948. The assessee appealed against the order of assessment and that order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 15th of November, 1951, and he directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. This fresh assessment was made on the 25th of January, 1954. The Income-tax Officer allowed the assessee interest on he advance payment from the date of payment till the 30th of March 1948. The contention of the assessee was that he was entitled to interest up to the 25th of January, 1954. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and hence the reference. Now under section 18A interest is allowable to the assessee from the date of payment to the date of the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the calculation of interest? It seems to us that what the Legislature contemplated in using the expression the date of the assessment was the factual date of the assessment and it was not considering the legality or the validity of the assessment made. It wanted to fix two termini for the calculation of interest. With regard to one terminus there was no difficulty: that was the date of payment of advance tax by the assessee. The other terminus had to be fixed and the other terminus was the date when the regular assessment was made. That terminus having been fixed, it could not be altered by any subsequent event or by the vicissitudes through which the assessment order might pass. If there had been no appeal and if the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the order may be subsequently set aside, there is no obligation upon the Department to pay any interest in respect of the amounts which they recovered as tax under the original assessment order. If we are right in this view, then the further question that arises need not be decided. The question is whether an appeal from the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to give to the assessee interest for the longer period was appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Department's contention is that the appeal does not fall within the terms of section 30 of the Income-tax Act. What has been urged by Mr. Joshi is that an assessee can only object to the amount of tax determined under section 23 and the determinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
