9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 215. 2. Rectification of order under section 154 post the limitation period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Charging of Interest under Sections 139(8) and 215: The assessee contended that interest under sections 139(8) and 215 could not be charged as it is not mandatory but discretionary. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ayushajaya Construction Ltd., where it was held that if the assessment order did not contain specific directions for charging interest, the same could not be charged. The assessee argued that since interest was not charged at the time of completing the assessment, it could not be charged later by invoking section 154. The Department countered that the expression "shall" in sections 139(8) and 215 makes the charging of interest mandatory, and the failure to charge interest constitutes a mistake of law apparent from the record, which can be rectified under section 154. The Department cited several judgments to support this view, including CIT v. Ashok Trading Co., where it was held that the omission to charge interest is a mistake of law apparent from the record and can be rectified under section 154. The Tribunal held that the charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 is part of the assessment process and is compensatory in nature. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where it was held that the levy of interest under these sections is mandatory. The Tribunal also noted that the Finance Act, 1987, made the charging of interest mandatory and removed the powers of the Assessing Officer to waive or reduce interest. 2. Rectification of Order under Section 154 Post the Limitation Period: The assessee argued that the rectification order under section 154 was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the four-year period from the date of the original assessment order under section 143(1). The assessee contended that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order, i.e., 30-11-1990, and not from the date of the first rectification order, i.e., 30-11-1993. The Department argued that the mistake occurred in the order passed on 30-11-1993, and not in the original assessment order. Therefore, the limitation period should be reckoned from 30-11-1993. The Department cited the judgment of the Patna High Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT, where it was held that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of the order in which the mistake occurred. The Tribunal held that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of the order in which the mistake occurred, i.e., 30-11-1993. The Tribunal noted that the scope of section 154 is wide and covers all mistakes of law or facts apparent from the record. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, where it was held that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of the order in which the mistake occurred. The Tribunal concluded that the rectification order was passed within the period of limitation and was not barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 is mandatory and the failure to charge interest constitutes a mistake of law apparent from the record, which can be rectified under section 154. The Tribunal also held that the rectification order was not barred by limitation as the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of the order in which the mistake occurred.
|
