9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain appeal on interest charged under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involves a question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain an appeal on the interest charged under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was assessed for the year 1969-70, and the Income-tax Officer ordered charging of interest for late filing of the return and late payment of advance tax. The assessee appealed against the assessment order, including the interest charged. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner entertained the appeal on the interest charged under sections 139 and 217. The Department contended that the appeal on interest was not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld this contention, leading to the reference of the question to the High Court. The High Court analyzed previous cases to determine the jurisdictional issue. In CIT v. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd., it was held that an appeal does not lie against the order levying interest under section 18A of the Act unless the assessee denies liability to be assessed. The court further stated that if the assessee denies liability to be assessed, they can challenge the imposition of penal interest in an appeal against the assessment order. In another case, CIT v. Devichand Panmal, the High Court ruled that in an appeal against the order of assessment where the assessee contends they are not liable to be taxed, raising the question of levying penal interest is permissible. The court supported its decision by referring to the Associated Stone Industries' case. Based on the analysis of previous cases and the facts of the current case, the High Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee. The court held that as the assessee had appealed against the assessment order, they could legitimately challenge the levy of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal was incorrect in finding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining the appeal on these points. The court ruled in favor of the assessee against the Revenue and awarded costs accordingly.
|
