Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (3) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 71(1)(c). The Settlement Commission held that for the assessment year 1983-84, no interest was leviable under section 139(8). As regards the assessment years 1984 85 and 1985-86, interest would be charged as due and for the year 1986-87, interest would be for a period of six months. However, for 1987-88 the Settlement Commission condoned delay in filing the return and waived the interest under section 139(8). As regards the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the Settlement Commission imposed the minimum penalty. As regards the levy or waiver of interest under section 215/217 of the Act, the petitioner states that there was no finding in the order of the first respondent dated March 22, 1993. The petitioner states that in the course of imple .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... approached the first respondent through an application dated July 19, 1999. The petitioner pointed out that in the order dated March 22, 1993, passed by the first respondent, there was no direction as to levy of interest under section 215/217 and consequently, no levy of interest was quantifiable. The petitioner also pointed out to the power of the Settlement Commission for waiver of interest under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for waiver of interest. The first respondent disposed of the said application vide order dated January 17,2005. It held that in the absence of direction for reduction or waiver of interest in the order passed originally on March 22, 1993, and considering the direction in the pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitted that in terms of section 2450(6), every order passed under sub-section (4) provides for terms of settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest and the manner in which any sum due under settlement shall be paid. Hence, when the assessing authority gives effect to the Commission's order, income-tax must be in terms of what had been quantified by the Settlement Commission. A perusal of the order does not show that it did not contemplate levy of interest under section 215/217. Consequently, the second respondent herein cannot impose interest which was not contemplated in the order passed under section 2450. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any direction, the same co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned senior counsel submitted that it was not open to the assessing authority to levy interest. In any event, he submitted that the Settlement Commission should have considered his petition for waiver which it had jurisdiction to consider. In the circumstances, he prayed for setting aside the order of the first respondent and to remand the matter back to the first respondent for consideration of the same for waiver in accordance with law. We agree with the contention of the senior standing counsel for the respondents that waiver of interest has to be by an overt act. Referring to the scope of power of the Settlement Commission with reference to section 245D, the apex court, in the decision reported in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd penalty under section 271(1) (c), which are reduced/waived in express terms, it had not interfered with the levy of interest under section 215/217. In the circumstances, it has taken the view that the levy of interest was not contrary to the order of the first respondent. Except for taking the view that the enhancement of interest under section 215/217 for the assessment year 1984-85 was contrary to the decisions of the various High Courts, it had not considered the plea for waiver. As rightly submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, when a specific prayer had been made, it stands to reason that the first respondent should have considered the same in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we uphold the prayer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates