TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was completed on 6-9-1980. Consequent on the order of the CIT(A) dated 21-9-1982, the ITO revised the assessment on 29-11-1982 which resulted in grant of refund and also interest u/s 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act. However, the original assessment was reopened (most probably u/s 147) and the ITO felt that on completion of the reassessment on 19-9-1984, interest allowed u/s 244(1A) in his order dated 29-11-1982 should have been withdrawn. But this was not done at the time of making the reassessment. As such, the ITO, after issuing a notice u/s 154 dated 18-7-1985 and allowing the assessee-company an opportunity of being heard, passed the order u/s 154 dated 10- 12-1985, impugned in the first appeal before us. In the said order u/s 154, he wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebatable issue, it does not lie on the ITO to withdraw the same by invoking the provisions of sec. 154, inasmuch as the mistake, if any, in allowing the interest earlier cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent from record. In support of this contention, he has relied on the famous case decided by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has taken us through the wordings of sec. 237 of the Act to prove that refund means the amount of tax paid by an assessee in excess of the amount with which he is properly chargeable under the Act for that year. He has argued that therefore, the amount of refund in respect of a particular year s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or levy of interest, we do not think that the said decision is of much use for us to decide the issue. On the other hand, although the reliance placed by the learned DR on the Karnataka High Court's decision in the case of H.V. Marchandani may support his contention that appeals did not lie against the orders passed by the ITO u/s 154 in this case, yet, the circumstances of the present case are that the CIT(A) actually entertained the said appeals and decided them on merits only. The Department has not come up in further appeal or in a cross-objection against the said action of the CIT(A) in entertaining the first appeals. The ground, therefore, now sought to be raised by the Department against the entertainment of the appeals at the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
