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

1973 (8) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6-67 and 1967-68. The petitioner who is the assessee under the Act happens to be the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The assessee made a disclosure of his income under section 271(4A) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa at Patna, on January 25, 1968. About two months thereafter, the assessee filed returns under section 139(4) of the Act for the aforesaid four years. The Commissioner of Income-tax, opposite party No. 1, on March 21, 1972, arrived at a settlement with the assessee (vide annexure " 6 "). The main terms thereof were these : " The sum of Rs. 2,30,000 (which was estimated as the investments up to March 31, 1967), as reduced by Rs. 50,000, opening capital, would be spread over equally in fou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee's liability for interest payable under sections 139 and 217 of the Act. In view of the fact that a part of the demand had already been paid by the assessee he directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute interest under section 217 of the Act by giving credits to the payment made under section 140A of the Act or taxes paid thereafter before the completion of regular assessment. He, however, did not interfere in regard to the demand of interest under section 139 of the Act. The assessee in these writ applications contends that in respect of these four years his entire liability has been quantified as a result of the settlement and it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to raise any further demands by way of interest. It is fu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... utcome of settlement and the assessee having not challenged such assessments in accordance with law the assessments have become final. As common questions of fact and law arise in all these four writ applications and one common argument was advanced before us, we propose to dispose of all these four cases by a common judgment. We propose to dispose of a preliminary point first. The learned standing counsel contended before us that the Commissioner's order was final and was not open to dispute before us. We do not think this contention has any merit. The order of the Commissioner made under section 264 of the Act was a judicial order and not an administrative one. In view of the decision in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer the questio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 139 of the Act the assessee has liability to pay interest at the rate indicated therein from the date of default to make the return till the return is made. The Income-tax Officer has raised the demand of interest on the basis of failure to furnish the return in each of the years. Under section 208 of the Act every assessee under certain circumstances has the liability to pay advance tax. It is not disputed that the assessee had such liability under the Act. Nor is it disputed that the assessee had failed to pay such tax notwithstanding the liability. Under section 217 of the Act the Income-tax Officer has a statutory mandate to raise demand of simple interest at the prescribed rate for the period from 1st of April next following the fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liability to interest was considered. We find force in the contention of the learned standing counsel. It is conceded before us by both sides that the petitioner had by making a voluntary disclosure invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 271(4A) of the Act. Disclosure was with reference to the income to be brought into the net of taxation. Penalty was a matter directly provided under that provision. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly dealt with the quantum of income and the question of penalty. Thereafter, he instructed the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the settlement. We are satisfied, therefore, that non-mention of the question of interest in the settlement cannot be construed as agreeing not to raise demand .....

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