Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 715 1980 SLD 715 (1980) 121 ITR 708
Allahabad High Court
29090
SATISH CHANDRA, C.J. K.C. AGARWAL AND R.R. RASTOGI, JJ
R.K. Gulati for the Department

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Geeta Ram Kali Ram, Sushil Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax andCommissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra

Law:

Section:

Section 246 [As it stood before 10-7-1978] of the income-tax act, 1961-Appeal to AAC-Scope of clause (c) of section 246-Whether ITO's order levying penal interest under section 139 for late filing of return, or under section 215 for non-payment or short payment of advance tax, or under section 217 for not filing estimate of income is appealable-Held, no Facts Common question of law on the point whether the ITO's order charging penal interest under section 139, 215 or 217 was appealable under section 246 arose in the four references which were disposed of by a single Judgment. Facts of the four references are stated in the following paragraphs: The ITO charged penal interest under section 217. In appeal, the assessee challenged the assessment of income as well as levy of interest. The AAC upheld the assessee's plea that section 217 was not attracted as the assessment was not a regular assessment. The Tribunal held that the appeal was competent on the question of charge of interest as it was not the only point on which the assessee had gone in for appeal. The ITO charged penal interest under sections 139 and 217. The AAC held that, while it was a fit case in which levy of interest under section 139 should be waived under rule 117A, no appeal lay against levy of interest under section 217. The Tribunal held that the charge of interest under neither of the sections was appealable. The ITO charged penal interest under section 139 and under section 215. The AAC upheld the ITO's order in respect of interest charged under section 139, but reduced the amount charged under section 215. The ITO levied penal interest under sections 217 and 139(1), but the same was challenged in appeal on the ground that the provisions of these two sections were not attracted. The Tribunal held that no appeal lay against the ITO's order charging the said interest under sections 139 and 217. On reference: Held 1. In the context of clause (c) of section 246, the word "assessed" cannot mean computation of income or determination of tax. Obviously, the said word is used in the comprehensive sense to mean "subjected to the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability on the taxpayer…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492