9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of penal interest levied under assessment order for the assessment year 1984-85. Jurisdiction of the court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Delay in approaching the court and failure to avail revision remedy. Validity of attachment of properties for recovery. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an order rejecting writ petitions against the attachment of properties for recovery of assessed amounts. The petitioner sought to quash the orders of attachment and the assessment order levying penal interest under the Income-tax Act. The main contention was whether the properties should be sold based on the validity of the assessment order regarding penal interest, as the tax assessed had been paid. The petitioner argued that challenging the penal interest alone was valid under section 246 of the Act, invoking the court's jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Regarding the validity of the penal interest levied in the reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 1984-85, the court referred to the decision in Charles D'Souza v. CIT, holding that penal interest cannot be levied in reassessment. The Department argued that the petitioner could seek revision under section 264 of the Act instead of appealing only against the penal interest levy. The court considered the delay in approaching the court and the petitioner's conduct during reassessment proceedings, emphasizing that failure to invoke revisional jurisdiction did not disentitle the petitioner from seeking relief under articles 226 and 227. The court analyzed the amendment to the Act and its impact on the assessment year in question, highlighting that the substituted Explanation 2 did not cover the assessment for the year 1984-85. The judgment emphasized that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to levy penal interest in the reassessment, leading to the quashing of the penal interest amount in the assessment order. The court also clarified that the attachment of properties was not disturbed, and the validity of the sale proclamation notification would be considered under the relevant rule of the Act. In conclusion, the appeals were allowed, quashing the penal interest amount in the assessment order for the assessment year 1984-85. The court upheld the validity of the attachment of properties while emphasizing the assessing authority's lack of jurisdiction in imposing penal interest, leading to the petitioner's entitlement to relief under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
|
