2008 (6) TMI 204 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal to CIT(A) condition precedent for entertainment of appeal pre deposit of tax held that - Section 249(4) is the provision whereby the remedy of the party is taken away, if there is non compliance with that provisions. It is well settled that when legislature seeks to make a law denying a remedy on failure to comply with deposit, the courts would save the remedy, if possible by the interpretative process. Further in taxing statute, if a view can be taken in favour of an assessee that view is ordinarily preferred - the penalty and interest under the Income Tax Act are different concepts and that definition of tax under Section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act regarding the inclusion of interest in the term "tax."

In this judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court, the court addressed the issue of whether the term "tax" under Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act includes interest. The court considered the literal reading of the provision and analyzed the definitions of "tax" and "interest" under the Act. The court highlighted that the legislature has defined these terms separately in the Act, indicating a distinction between them. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the law to preserve remedies for parties whenever possible. It was noted that in a taxing statute, a view in favor of the assessee is generally preferred. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support the distinction between tax, penalty, and interest under the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, the Bombay High Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal that the term "tax" under Section 249(4) does not include interest. The court refused to frame a question of law that had been remanded back to the C.I.T. (Appeal), and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.