9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal against the levy of interest under section 139(1)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Interpretation of whether interest levied should be considered as "tax" for appeal purposes. - Comparison of interest, penalty, and tax in the context of appeal rights. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed the issue of the maintainability of an appeal against the levy of interest under section 139(1)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent, a HUF, failed to submit its income tax return for the assessment year 1962-63 within the prescribed period. The ITO assessed the respondent to tax and directed the payment of interest under section 139 of the Act. The respondent appealed against the levy of interest only, which was initially dismissed as not maintainable by the AAC. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deemed the appeal maintainable and directed the AAC to decide on the merits. The central question referred to the court was whether the appeal against the interest levied was maintainable under section 246 of the Act. The court examined the provisions of section 139(1) regarding the discretionary extension of the return filing period by the ITO and the subsequent levy of interest on the tax payable. It was highlighted that section 246 of the Act does not explicitly provide for an appeal against the levy of interest under section 139. The respondent argued that interest levied should be considered as "tax," making it appealable under section 246(c) concerning objections to the amount of tax determined. The court analyzed past judgments from various High Courts, including Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Madras, and Allahabad, which held that interest is not tax or additional tax, and therefore, an order levying interest is not appealable. The court referenced Supreme Court cases such as C. A. Abraham v. ITO and CIT v. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co., which discussed penalty as part of the machinery for the assessment of tax liability. However, the court distinguished between tax, penalty, and penal interest, emphasizing that the concepts are distinct. The Supreme Court clarified in CIT v. Anwar Ali that penalty serves as a deterrent against default and is intended to be penal in nature. The court concluded that the observations in the Supreme Court cases did not overrule the previous view that interest is not equated to tax, penalty, or additional tax, and hence, the appeal to the AAC against the interest levy was not maintainable. In summary, the court held that the appeal against the interest levied under section 139(1)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable as interest is distinct from tax and penalty. The court reaffirmed the distinction between tax, penalty, and interest, emphasizing that interest does not fall under the category of appealable orders. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal interpretations surrounding the appeal rights concerning the levy of interest under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the specific nature of interest as compared to tax and penalty.
|
