9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act in the context of reassessment under section 34. Analysis: The case involved appeals from a judgment disposing of writ petitions concerning the imposition of interest under section 18A(6) of the Income-tax Act following reassessment under section 34. The appellant contested the charge of interest and sought relief under the proviso to section 18A(6). The main contention was whether the term "regular assessment" in section 18A(6) applied to reassessments under section 34. The judge initially ruled that reassessment constituted a regular assessment, equating it to an amended decree. However, the appellant argued that a regular assessment, as defined in section 18A(5), did not encompass reassessments under section 34. The court analyzed the term "regular assessment" in section 18A(5) and its implications for section 18A(6). The Department contended that reassessment under section 34 fell under the purview of a regular assessment under section 23. The court referred to a previous ruling but noted it did not directly address the specific issue at hand. The court also examined a Bombay High Court decision related to interest payments under section 18A(5) to elucidate the interpretation of a regular assessment. The court emphasized the importance of fixed termini for interest calculations and the significance of the date of the regular assessment in determining liability under section 18A(6). Ultimately, the court held that the term "regular assessment" in section 18A(6) did not encompass reassessments under section 34. The court applied the principle that in interpreting fiscal enactments like the Income-tax Act, the assessee should benefit from any doubt regarding the construction of provisions. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, quashing the orders imposing statutory interest under section 18A(6) up to the date of the reassessment orders. The appellant was granted costs, with a specified advocate's fee for the entire batch. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of "regular assessment" under section 18A(6) in the context of reassessments under section 34, emphasizing the distinction between regular assessments and reassessments. The court's decision favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of clear language in fiscal enactments and granting the benefit of doubt to the assessee in case of ambiguity.
|
