9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appealability of interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Commissioner (Appeals); Validity of interest charged without opportunity to the assessee; Exercise of discretion under rule 40 in waiving interest.
Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the interest charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITO had added interest to the assessment order, which was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that an appeal against the interest charged under section 215 was maintainable based on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) further found that the ITO should have waived the interest under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and consequently deleted the interest charged. This decision was appealed by the department. 2. The departmental representative contended that an appeal on the interest charged under section 215 was not maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was argued that the appeal could only lie if it was evident that no interest was chargeable at all under section 215. The representative relied on judgments of the Calcutta High Court and the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the automatic nature of interest under sections 215 and 217 of the Act. 3. The counsel for the assessee argued that the assessment order, including the interest charged under section 215, could be challenged in appeal. It was contended that the order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity, violating the rule of natural justice. The counsel relied on judgments highlighting the ITO's duty to consider waiving or reducing interest under rule 40 based on the facts on record. 4. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found merit in the assessee's contentions. It was noted that the ITO's order lacked evidence of applying his mind to the levy of interest under section 215. The Tribunal clarified that while the application of section 215 might be automatic based on calculations, the ITO must exercise discretion and call upon the assessee to explain before levying interest. Failure to do so rendered the order illegal, necessitating a remedy for the assessee. The Tribunal cited judgments emphasizing the maintainability of appeals against interest charged under section 215 in specific circumstances. 5. The Tribunal affirmed that once the appeal was deemed maintainable, the appellate authority had the power to consider the matter on merit. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have properly exercised discretion under rule 40 in waiving the interest, leading to the maintenance of the Commissioner's order. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to waive the interest charged under section 215.
|
