9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessee's liability for payment of interest under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The dispute in this appeal pertains to the assessee's liability for interest under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Initially, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) did not charge interest under this provision, but later rectified the assessment to include the interest. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (AAC) quashed the direction to levy interest, citing a decision of the Kerala High Court. However, the Appellate Tribunal found the present case distinguishable from the Kerala High Court case. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO had specifically mentioned in the original order that interest should be charged according to law, and the circumstances did not warrant waiving the interest under section 217(1A) in this case. The representative of the assessee contended that the question of levying interest under section 217(1A) had already been decided by the AAC in the appeal related to the original assessment and could not be rectified. The AAC had earlier dismissed appeals against the levy of interest, but upon rehearing, canceled the levy of interest for lack of specific direction in the assessment order. The Tribunal clarified that the AAC's decision did not absolve the assessee from liability, as it only pertained to the absence of a specific direction for interest in the demand notice. During the appeal hearing, the assessee raised a new argument challenging the legality of the ITO's rectification order under section 154. The argument contended that the ITO should have given notice to the assessee before enhancing the assessment, as required by law. The Tribunal acknowledged the significance of this argument, emphasizing that failure to provide notice would deprive the ITO of jurisdiction to rectify the order. As the time limit for rectification had expired, the Tribunal accepted the appeal, set aside the AAC's order, and directed a fresh decision considering the observations made. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of procedural requirements and the necessity for proper notice before enhancing an assessment. The matter was remanded back to the AAC for a fresh decision in light of the Tribunal's observations.
|
