9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge of charging interest under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the charging of interest amounting to Rs. 6,331 under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) charged the interest due to the assessee's failure to revise the advance tax estimate as required by the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment and the interest charge before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who reduced the total income but did not entertain the appeal against the interest charge, citing that there was no right of appeal under section 246 of the Act. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the AAC's decision. Subsequently, an application was made to the High Court under section 256(2) for a statement of the case and referral of a legal question for opinion. The key provision in question was section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, which mandates the payment of simple interest at 12% per annum if the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax by more than 33 1/3 per cent. The court emphasized that the demand for interest under this provision is a logical consequence of the assessment order, and therefore, there is no right of appeal specifically for the levy of interest under section 217(1A). The court clarified that the appellate authority cannot provide relief where there is no provision for appeal. The crux of the legal argument revolved around whether an appeal could be made under section 246(c) of the Act, which allows appeals against certain orders of the Income Tax Officer. The assessee contended that the phrase "where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act" in section 246(c) encompassed appeals against the levy of interest under section 217(1A). However, the court noted a divergence of opinion among High Courts on the interpretation of this phrase. The majority view held that the denial of liability referred to in section 246(c) pertains to the Act as a whole and not to specific provisions or sections. The court cited various precedents to support this interpretation. In conclusion, the court answered the reference in the negative, favoring the Department and ruling against the assessee. The judgment highlighted that the denial of liability in section 246(c) does not extend to challenging specific provisions of the Act, such as the levy of interest under section 217(1A). The decision was made considering the comprehensive nature of the denial of liability under the Act.
|
