9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he determination of the ALV of the house, B-12, Greater Kailash New Delhi, as also deductibility of the interest paid to Sharma Estate Agency and Sharma Property Dealers. There was only one "other objection" before the Tribunal. That was with regard to the disallowance of interest paid to Bank of Baroda. On this point, the assessee's claim was rejected and the order of the authorities below confirmed. In other words, only part of the assessment as it stood after the first Appellate Authority's order was confirmed. The other part, i.e. relating to the determination of the annual value and allowability of interest payments to Sharma Estate Agency and Sharma Property Dealers came to be set aside for being redone by the ITO. This order of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so available on p. 6 of the assessee's paper book. This is to the following effect: "Order under s. 254 of the IT act, 1961 This is an order to give effect to the order of the Tribunal 'C', Bench New Delhi, dt.22nd March, 1982arising out of appeal No. ITA 927/Del/81: . Rs. Net income as per order under s. 250 dt.22-1-1981 . 1,58,206 Less : The ITAT set aside the following additions : . . (i) higher rental value of free furnished accommodation 57,000 . (ii) interest to Sharma Estate and Property Dealer 13,360 73,360 . 87,846 or say . 87,850 Issue necessary forms. Allow credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er order dt.28th Nov., 1983 Rs. Income assessed 1,46,700 Tax payable : Income-tax 95,799 Interest under s. 139 530 Interest under s. 215 9,275 Interest under s. 220 1,815 1,07,419 Add : Interest withdrawn allowed earlier under s. 244(1A) 14,542 1,21,961 Less : Recovered as per original assessment 50,485 Payable : 71,746" One of the contentions taken before the Commissioner (A) in its appeal from the aforesaid order of 28th Nov., 1983, was that the ITO wrongly withdrew interest refund of Rs. 14,542 originally allowed to the assessee under s. 244(1A). The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant provisions in the Act. The departmental Representative's contention was that there could be no consequential order for giving effect to an appellate order which only partly determined the various issues that were in dispute for assessment. In the instant case, two issues were not decided by the Tribunal by its order of23rd March, 1982. These issues related to the determination of the annual value of the Greater Kailash house and also the allowability of certain interest payments. Until these issues were finally settled by the ITO by way of a fresh order, which itself would be the subject of appeal proceedings, no consequential order could be passed by the ITO and even if he did, there was no question of his allowing any interest unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of tax over and above what is due from him for any assessment year. The expression used in the section is "such amount or any part thereof having been found in appeal or other proceedings under this Act to be in excess of the amount which such assessee is liable to pay as tax under this Act". Now there are two components here to be considered. The first is the amount that an assessee is liable to pay as tax for the assessment year in question in pursuance of an order of assessment. This is not in dispute before us. This has come to be Rs. 66,655. The second component is the amount actually paid by the assessee in pursuance of the order of assessment as finally modified in appeal. Under the order of Commissioner (A) dt.10th Sept., 1984w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
