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

2021 (12) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that a fresh assessment which has been made by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the original assessment, would constitute a 'regular assessment' for purposes of section 215 of the Act ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer is entitled to charge interest under Section 215 of the Act despite the fact that the assessment order does not contain any direction that such interest would be charged ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that in the light of the Judgment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Rules). The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 20th March 1989 under Rule 40(1) of the Rules holding that the delay in finalisation of the assessment was not attributable to the Appellant and waived the interest under Section 215 of the Act beyond one year of the filing of the return of income. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax accordingly re-calculated the interest chargeable under Section 215 at Rs. 4,13,630/- and waived the balance of Rs. 4,40,020/-. 5. The Appellant received a show cause notice dated 6th March 1990 under Section 263 of the Act from the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Appellant filed its objections by letter dated 26th March 1990, objecting to the proposed action. The Commissioner of Income- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) with regard to the issue of levy of interest under Section 215, the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the Tribunal. While challenging said order, the Assessing Officer accepted that part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which deleted the levy of interest under Section 139(8) of the Act and confined the Appeal to the deletion of interest under Section 215(6) of the Act. The Tribunal by impugned order restored interest levied by assessing officer by way of computation sheet annexed to the said order. 9. We have heard Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate for Appellant. He submits that Question of Law No.(i) is covered by the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. And Others Vs. Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der of re-assessment and in the absence of such application, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of Assessing Officer directing Appellant to pay interest as per Section 215 of the Act. 11. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Section 215 of the Act makes it clear that the Assessee is required to pay interest where he has paid advance tax less than 75% of the assessed tax, the Assessee is required to pay simple interest @ 15% p.a. from the first day of April following the financial year up to the date of regular assessment. 12. The Supreme Court has summed up in the case of Modi Industries Ltd.(Supra) by saying that the expression "regular assessment" has been used in the Income Tax Act in no other se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essee and therefore the Assessee is not liable to pay interest under Section 215 of the Act beyond the period of one year from the date of filing of return. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 4,40,020/-. The order of Dy.CIT, Bombay, dated 20/03/1989, has not been challenged by Revenue or Appellant, with the result said order attained finality. In the absence of challenge to the order under Rule 40(1) of IT Rules, the Appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (supra). Therefore Appellant is not entitled to waiver of interest for a period of one year. Appellant is entitled to the benefit of order dated 20/03/1989 .....

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