9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard Sri M.J. Swamy learned counsel for the accountable person and Shri B.P. Ramana, Naik, learned Departmental Representative. It is not in dispute that the property fetched rent of Rs. 5 per day, nor is it in dispute that the provisions of Rent Control Act are applicable. In our view, therefore, the rent capitalisation method would be the proper method for valuation of the property with a multiple of 8-1/2 times as Sri Tummala Ramamurthy had died on 10th April, 1983. However, if the value so arrived at under the rent capitalisation method is less than Rs. 24,000 offered by the accountable person, the latter value will prevail. To this extent, the order of the Appellate Controller is modified. 3. The next point of dispute is about the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a legal plea before the second appellate authority on the issue of levy of interest under s. 70(2) as such a plea did not involve any investigation of facts. Sri Ramana Naik vehemently opposed the taking of a plea against the levy of interest under s. 70(2) which was not at all agitated before the first appellate authority. In support of the contention that interest cannot be levied in the matter in which it has been levied, Sri Swamy relied on the following decisions: CIT vs. Gangappa Cables Ltd. 1978 CTR (AP) 332: (1979) 116 ITR 778 (AP); 104 ITR 705 [sic]; CED vs. R. Brahadeeswaran (1986) 57 CTR (Mad) 162 : (1987) 163 ITR 680 (Mad); Mrs. Kamala Ramaswamy vs. Asstt. CED (1986) 26 TTJ (Mad) 420; Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of death of the deceased but time was granted to furnish the return from time to time. Therefore, the accountable person was liable to pay interest but only interest at the rate prescribed in the Rules. In other words, the accountable person is under an obligation to pay interest only at the prescribed rate and not at any rate higher than that. In terms of r. 42 the rate of interest is 6 per cent per annum or such reduced rate of interest as may be appropriate to that case in accordance with the general instructions issued by the Board in that behalf. Therefore, the levy of interest at 6 per cent alone is justified as that is the maximum amount of interest prescribed. But, in this case, we find that the Asstt. Controller has levied inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the issue cannot be agitated in the second appeal. In CED vs. K. Brahadeeswaran, the Madras High Court held that an appellant before the Tribunal could raise any new or additional point for the first time in an appeal before that body even though it had not been raised in any form at earlier stages, and in such a situation, the Tribunal was duty bound to entertain that ground and render a determination either themselves or by remanding the matter, if further investigation into the facts was warranted. This was so because the appellate power under the taxing enactments was in no way different in substance from the assessment power exercisable by the assessing authority in the first instance. Moreover, the Tribunal could be more clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
