9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "regular assessment" in section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the levy of interest under section 215(1) when the advance tax paid by the assessee is not less than 75% of the tax assessed in pursuance of an appellate or revisional authority's order for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer levied interest on the shortfall in advance tax paid by the assessee, which was later reduced by the appellate authority resulting in a further appeal by the assessee (paragraph 1). The controversy revolves around the interpretation of the term "regular assessment" in section 215 of the Act. The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta High Court's decision, held that interest under section 215(1) cannot be maintained if the advance tax paid is not less than 75% of the tax assessed pursuant to the appellate order. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT clarified that "regular assessment" refers to the original assessment under section 143 or 144, not subsequent orders following appeals or revisions (paragraph 2). The judgment highlights the Supreme Court's position that the term "regular assessment" in the Act refers to the initial assessment by the Income-tax Officer under section 143 or 144. This interpretation is reinforced by the Bombay High Court's Full Bench decision in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., which held that "regular assessment" means the original assessment and not subsequent orders post-appeals or revisions. The Tribunal's interpretation was deemed incorrect in light of these precedents, leading to a ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee (paragraph 3). In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that "regular assessment" in section 215 of the Act pertains to the first assessment made under section 143 or 144, as established by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court's Full Bench decision. The Tribunal's interpretation, based on the Calcutta High Court's ruling, was deemed erroneous, resulting in the judgment favoring the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no costs awarded (paragraph 4).
|
