9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment order with patent errors and rectification process. 2. Demand notice and payment of tax by the assessee. 3. Interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Commissioner's order and reduction of interest. 5. Constitutionality of section 220(2) under Article 14. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the situation where an assessment order contained errors, leading the assessee to return the demand notice for rectification. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rectified the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a fresh demand notice and the imposition of interest under section 220(2) on the unpaid tax amount post-rectification. The petitioner contended that due to gross errors in the assessment order, they could not be expected to pay the tax as per the initial demand notice. However, the court emphasized that the law mandates payment within 35 days of receiving the notice of demand, with interest accruing if not paid within the stipulated period. 2. The court highlighted the provisions of sections 156 and 220(1) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the obligation on the assessee to pay the tax amount specified in the demand notice within 35 days. Failure to comply results in liability to pay interest at twelve per cent per annum from the end of the 35-day period. The court noted that the proviso to section 220(2) allows for a reduction in interest if the assessed amount is rectified under section 154. In this case, the ITO appropriately adjusted the interest amount post-rectification, as mandated by the law. 3. The judgment delves into the argument presented by the petitioner regarding the alleged unreasonableness and harshness of the ITO's order, suggesting it could render section 220 unconstitutional under Article 14. However, the court disagreed, stating that the ITO's order was not unreasonable but rather equitable, considering the adjustments made post-rectification. The court cited previous Supreme Court observations to support the notion that imposing conditions, such as paying tax before rectification, is within the legislative purview and does not violate constitutional rights. 4. The petitioner contended that holding them liable to pay interest under section 220(2) in the circumstances would be arbitrary and unfair, violating Article 14. The court dismissed this argument, reiterating that the law requires timely tax payment upon receiving the demand notice, and failure to comply attracts interest. The court emphasized that the law does not permit withholding tax payment pending rectification, as it would undermine the statutory framework. 5. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition and summarily dismissed it, upholding the legality and constitutionality of the provisions under scrutiny. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for tax payment and the consequences of non-compliance, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed procedures without deviation.
|
