9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 210 and the period of default for submission of return has been taken to be one month. The ITO rejected the contentions of the assessee as being untenable. He proceeded to rectify the assessment order accordingly. 3. The assessee preferred the appeal before the AAC contending that interest u/s 139(8) was wrongly charged as the period was only for one month. The AAC found the same to be in order and deleted the interest levied. In respect of the charging of interest u/s 217(1A), the AAC noted the facts briefly. It was mentioned that the assessee paid Rs. 10,450 u/s 210 whereas the tax was determined at Rs. 29,990. He also noted that the assessee conceded that notice u/s 210 was served on him, but the contention was that the notice did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of ITO, Dibrugarh vs. Mrs. Mahmuda Begum Ors. being ITA No. 11/Gau/ 1980 dt. 2nd June,1982 in which the ratio of the decision in the case of K.B. Stores vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 505 (Gau), was considered. It is urged that the AAC basically committed an error in entertaining the point raised by the assessee and ultimately allowing the same. It is argued at length that the order passed by the ITO, in fact, required to be sustained. It is submitted that the order of the AAC may be reversed. 5. The assessee s ld. counsel supports the order of the AAC while contending that it is not correct for the AAC to say that the assessee had raised the contention relating to the new amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the ITO u/s 154, it is seen that he referred to the petition of the assessee u/s 154 dt. 15th Oct, 1976, the contents of which have been discussed by us above. In that petition the assessee has also referred to the earlier petition dt. 17th Feb, 1975 in which a similar point of contention that the notice u/s 210 was bad in law was raised. But the ITO has chosen to conclude briefly that the contention of the assessee was not tenable, Reasons, of course, were not assigned. Accordingly, the assessee s ld. counsel is right in saying that it is not correct for the AAC to say that this point of contention was not raised earlier before the ITO. It is clarified before us that s. 209, as amended, requires aggregation of agricultural incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 154 or 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections. The assessee made certain claim u/s 154 before the ITO which was refused as discussed above. Accordingly, s. 246(1) (f) would come into play and the assessee can raise this point before the AAC. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the AAC, on the facts of the case, has rightly cancelled the order of the ITO u/s 154 and allowed the claim of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the order of the AAC is sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
