9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the period March 15, 1975, to April 1, 1977. 2. Validity of levy of interest for the period February 5, 1979, to August 12, 1983. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Levy of Interest under Section 220(2) for the Period March 15, 1975, to April 1, 1977: The petitioner challenged the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the period from March 15, 1975, to April 1, 1977, on the grounds that once an assessment is reopened under section 148, the original assessment becomes void and non est. The petitioner argued that the reassessment order is the only valid order, and no tax is due prior to its date; therefore, no interest can be charged under section 220(2). The court disagreed with this contention, stating that the original assessment order remains valid and effective until it is substituted by the reassessment order. The reassessment order does not erase the operation or efficacy of the original assessment order during the period it was in force. The court emphasized that the original assessment order is good and effective until it is replaced by the reassessment order. Accepting the petitioner's argument would lead to anomalous situations where appeals and recovery proceedings related to the original assessment would abate, and interest under section 220(2) would cease to accrue. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT, CST v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali, and Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. H. R. Sri Ramulu, to support the view that reassessment wipes out the original assessment, but it does not render the original assessment void ab initio. The court concluded that the charging of interest under section 220(2) for the period March 15, 1975, to April 1, 1977, is neither illegal nor invalid. 2. Validity of Levy of Interest for the Period February 5, 1979, to August 12, 1983: The petitioner also contended that the levy of interest for the period from February 5, 1979 (the date of the Tribunal's order), to August 12, 1983 (the date of the modification order), is illegal. However, this contention was not raised in the writ petition, and the court declined to consider it. The court noted that whether the delay in passing the modification order was due to negligence or inaction by the Income-tax Officer, or whether the petitioner was responsible for it, are questions of fact that were not addressed in the writ petition. The court suggested that the proper forum to raise this question is before the Commissioner under sub-section (2A) of section 220. The court emphasized that the petitioner should approach the Commissioner, who would consider and dispose of the representation according to law. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the levy of interest under section 220(2) for the period from March 15, 1975, to April 1, 1977. The court did not address the validity of the levy of interest for the period from February 5, 1979, to August 12, 1983, as it was not raised in the writ petition. The petitioner was advised to approach the Commissioner under section 220(2A) for this issue. No costs were awarded, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250.
|
