9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest payable by the assessee under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax in dealing with interest liabilities. 3. Contention regarding the settlement fixing the entire liability of the assessee under the Act and its impact on interest payments. 4. Interpretation of the settlement terms and its effect on the demand of interest by the Income-tax Officer. 5. Whether the Commissioner's order under section 264 of the Act was final and not open to dispute. Analysis: The judgment involves four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs of certiorari to quash demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest payable by the assessee under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and orders in revision passed under section 264(1) of the Act. The settlement between the Commissioner and the assessee quantified the income to be assessed and the penalty under section 271 of the Act but did not address the liability for interest under sections 139 and 217. The Commissioner's order directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute interest under section 217 but did not interfere with the demand under section 139. The assessee contended that the settlement fixed the entire liability, precluding further demands for interest. The revenue argued that interest is a statutory liability calculated at the time of regular assessment, not covered by the settlement. The court held that the settlement did not exempt the assessee from interest payments as it was not addressed in the agreement. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in dealing with interest liabilities. It was argued that the Commissioner's focus was on income and penalty under section 271, not interest. The court found that the Commissioner rightly dealt with income and penalty under the settlement, and non-mention of interest did not waive the liability. The settlement did not bar the subsequent claim of interest, which is a statutory obligation. The court rejected the contention that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to consider interest matters. The judgment also discussed the validity of demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest under sections 139 and 217. The court held that the settlement did not absolve the assessee from interest payments, as interest is to be calculated at the time of regular assessment, not during settlement negotiations. The settlement terms focusing on income and penalty did not waive the liability for interest, which is a statutory requirement. Regarding the finality of the Commissioner's order under section 264, the court held that it was a judicial order, allowing the writ petitions to be maintainable. The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the settlement did not relieve the assessee from the obligation to pay interest under the Income-tax Act.
|
