Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 1231 1986 SLD 1231 (1986) 157 ITR 327
Karnataka High Court
I.T. REFERENCE No. 37 OF 1973 SEPTEMBER 17, 1975
G.K. GOVINDA BHAT, C.J. AND M.K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Additional Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service

Law:

Section:

Section 263, read with section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1964-65 - Assessee made delay in filing return - ITO completed assessment determining total income but did not charge interest for delay in filing return - AAC reduced assessable income by certain amount and directed assessing officer to modify assessment suitably - Subsequently, Additional Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 to revise order of ITO on ground of his failure to change interest for delay in filing return - Whether assessment order that had become final was order of first appellate authority and, therefore, Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 263 - Held, yes FACTS The assessee filed a revised return declaring the income more than that as declared by it in its original return. The original return filed by the assessee was not on due date and a notice under section 139(2) had been served on it. An application in Form No. 6 filed by assessee for extension of time was granted by the ITO. The ITO, subsequently, completed the assessment determining the total income of assessee more than that declared by it in the revised return. However, he did not change any interest from the assessee on account of delay in filing the return. On appeal, the AAC reduced the assessable income. Subsequently, Additional Commissioner issued a notice to assessee under section 263 proposing to revise the order of the ITO on the ground that it was prejudicial to the revenue as the ITO had failed to charge interest under section 139(1)(iii). On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that inasmuch as the order of assessment passed by the ITO was merged in the order of the AAC, the Additional Commissioner was precluded from taking proceedings under section 263. On reference : HELD Levy of interest under the proviso to section 139(1) is not to be made by a separate order; it forms part of the assessment order. Interest, if any levied, forms part of the amount for which a notice of demand had to be issued under section 156. If the tax assessed is reduced by the AAC, then it…
πŸ”’
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