9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of rejection of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Jurisdiction of authorities to make observations on court decisions. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of rejection of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act The petitioner, a company assessed for the year 1981-82, sought interest under section 214 on a refund amount following revisions in assessments. The petitioner's claim was based on the excess amount paid in relation to the final tax liability. The authorities rejected the petitioner's request for interest under section 214 on the refund amount of Rs. 8,30,281. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759, emphasizing that interest under section 214 is payable only up to the date of the regular assessment, not until the date of the refund. The court clarified that interest on excess advance tax is paid from the following financial year till the date of regular assessment. The court held that the rejection of interest by the authorities was against the provisions of the Act and previous court decisions, thus rendering the impugned order illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh disposal within 120 days. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of authorities to make observations on court decisions The court highlighted that the authorities, specifically the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax, made observations questioning the decisions of the court, stating that the "Madras High Court's decision has not been accepted by the Department." The court emphasized that the authorities are bound by court decisions and lack the authority to challenge or disregard them. The court asserted that if the authorities disagree with court decisions, they should seek remedy through appropriate channels rather than making unauthorized remarks. The court clarified that decisions of the High Courts must be accepted and followed by the Department without question. The court deemed such unauthorized observations by the authorities as improper and emphasized the binding nature of court decisions on the Department. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in line with the court's observations and the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The court's decision was based on the illegality of rejecting interest under section 214, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and court decisions while addressing the jurisdictional limits of authorities in commenting on court rulings.
|
