TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (12) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime and that even if there were no limitations provided, the orders charging interest should have been passed within reasonable time of the default. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Krishna Bhatta v. Agrl. ITO [1981] 132 ITR 21. The learned CIT(A) however, did not accept the contentions. According to him, in the present case, only simple interest for the period of delay has been charged and the assessee has not been visited with any penalty under the impugned orders for the default on its part. Secondly, the assessee had made use of the funds beyond the prescribed time and, therefore, no hardship has been caused to the assessee for the delayed action on behalf of the department for charging interest under a delayed order. Since the department was getting under the impugned orders what was the bare minimum due to it, it was held by him that the delay in passing an order in such circumstances would not vitiate the orders, as the assessee had not been put to any unnecessary or avoidable hardship. The ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of reasonable cause and confirmed the interest charged by the Assessing Officer. 4. The assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... logic, the proceedings themselves should be rendered or passed within a reasonable time. The repository of statutory power should be reasonable, that means that Damocles' sword should not hang endlessly, at the caprice of any statutory authority." Reliance is also placed on the earlier decisions in the case of Nelliampathy Tea & Produce Co. Ltd v. CAIT [1991] 190 ITR 227 (Ker.) and in the case of Traco Cable Co. Ltd v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 278 (Ker.) and in the cases cited before the CIT(A). The decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 683 and of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vinar & Co. v. ITO [1992] 193 ITR 300 and of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. [1980] 121 ITR 476 are also cited for the above proposition. 7. On the other hand, Shri M.P. Kotwal, learned Departmental Representative maintained that the issue is concluded by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. Interest under section 201(1A) of the Act is mandatory and automatic and no limitation can be placed for the recovery of such liability which the assessee itself should have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs from the end of the assessment year in which the income is first assessable. Section 149 of the Act provides the period within which the order can be re-opened and such period is limited to 4 years at the first instance by the Assessing Officer. Section 154 of the Act provides the period within which the order can be rectified within a limited period of 4 years by the authorities. Similarly, penalty imposable under Chapter XXI is to be initiated and completed within two years from the date of completion of the proceedings, in the course of which proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced. This section was amended with effect from 1-4-1989 and the limitation period is substantially reduced. Action of Commissioner under section 263 of the Act is to be taken within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be rectified was passed. From the above provisions, it is clear that there is a time-limit for completion of any proceedings taken under the Act. 10. In the case of tax deducted at source, it is seen that the basic and main purpose of the section is to mop up taxes before the assessment and tax deducted at source is in the natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 24-9-1983 30-3-1984 1981-82 25-9-1984 29-3-1985 1982-83 19-9-1985 17-3-1987 1983-84 31-7-1987 17-3-1987 1984-85 25-9-1987 19-1-1988 1985-86 30-3-1988 24-1-1989 1986-87 22-9-1989 20-3-1991 ---------------------------------------------- In such a case, even if the Assessing Officer failed to scrutinise the short deduction of tax or delay in payment of the annual returns in the normal time, he could have done the same at the time of passing the assessment order or when he gives effect to the appellate order of the CIT(A). Nothing appears to have been done. However, on....