TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides for appeals against specific orders makes no mention of section 18A(6) - hence the revision petition filed before the Commissioner was competent - - - - - Dated:- 1-2-1968 - Judge(s) : VEERASWAMI., RAMAPRASADA RAO. JUDGMENT The judgment of the was delivered by VEERASWAMI J.- This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is to quash an order of the first respondent, the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so (c) to section 33A(2) of the Act would not lie to him. In taking that view he purported to follow C. Gnanasundara Nayagar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In our opinion, the view of the Commissioner cannot be maintained. It is true that C. Gnanasundara Nayagar v. Commissioner of income-tax held that an order of assessment could not be revised by the Commissioner on an application by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier view of the Allahabad High Court in Pt. Deo Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax. With respect, we are in, entire agreement with that view. The point is that penal interest could in no sense be regarded as a part of the total income of the assessee who is assessed under section 23. The fact that the penal interest is added to the tax, since it finds a place in the order of assessment, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of the revision petition afresh on its merits. We may also observe that, though the Commissioner's order was taken up on a petition to the Central Board of Revenue, the latter has disposed of the matter on the view that it had no authority to interfere with the Commissioner's order. That order being not on the merits, it does not even require to be quashed formally. No costs. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
