TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). However, the Income-tax Officer determined the income for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 under the regular assessment. For the assessment year 1975-76, the officer determined the income of the firm as Rs. 1,26,360 and for the year 1976-77, as Rs. 1,04,838. Being aggrieved by the additions made by the officer, the assessee filed appeals and the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the additions made by the Income-tax Officer. Exhibit P-1 is the copy of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the appeals. Since fresh assessments were not made pursuant to exhibit P-1 order, the petitioner filed exhibit P-2 representation before the Commissioner on May 6, 1988. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the payment of tax on such income before furnishing the return. As aforesaid, the petitioner had paid the tax before submitting the return under section 140A. That the setting aside of the regular assessment does not mean that the self-assessment made under section 140A has been set aside. Even if the regular assessment is declared to be void, it has no effect on the self-assessment made under section 140A. The direction to refund the tax paid on regular assessment does not mean that the tax paid along with the return under section 140A shall be refunded, because the payment of tax under self-assessment is on the admitted income returned by the assessee. When tax has been paid on the admitted income, even if the income added by the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar assessment. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can the tax paid and collected under section 140A be described as a mere ad hoc or interim payment which can be said to fail in the absence of a regular assessment, as was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners." The Commissioner in exhibit P-5 has sufficiently found that the dispute in the original assessment was regarding the additions made in the assessments, and the original assessments had been set aside in respect of the additions made. That being the position, I do not see any justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. The retention of the tax paid on self-assessment on the basis of income returned by the assessee is perfectly in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
