9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of sea foods, in view of the double taxation avoidance agreement between the Government of India and the Netherlands, they claimed reliefs. But they could not furnish documents supporting their claims, and the Assessing Officer, accepting the returns, raised a demand for Rs. 15,02,250 which included interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The matter was, therefore, taken to the first respondent, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, by way of a waiver petition after paying the tax minus the interest. No appeal had been filed by the assessee challenging the assessment and the submission was only in respect of the demand for interest. Though the claim was based on the text of the Board's order dated May 23, 1996, at the time of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the Revenue submitted that the tax liability was strict in nature and a relaxation therefore was impermissible. He referred to the endorsement in the return filed, showing the double taxation relief was disallowed, for want of proper certificate. A hearing at that stage was not possible, as it was the obligation of the assessee to make available with the return all relevant documents. Consequently, liability for payment of advance tax had arisen, as the payment of tax was expected to be made, as and when the assessee earned the income. Relying on the counter affidavit filed, it had also been submitted that after assessment there was only a request for payment by instalments. A rectification petition was however filed, but it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner had referred to the decision in CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 48 (SC) in support of his contention that interest was a levy and amounted to a punishment. But the principle decided in the above case was that the return filed on the date when it was filed was correct, and the amending Act with retrospective effect could not have been a ground for levying additional tax. This was also the gist of the decision reported in Evershine Plastics v. Asst. Commissioner (S. T.) [2000] 120 STC 396 (Ker). In fact this position has been taken care of in the cir cular referred to above. As to the claim of the petitioner under section 80HHC, standing counsel submits that the assessee had not projected such a claim, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
