9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged under s. 215 and/or 217 of the IT Act. The facts briefly stated are that assessments in these cases were made under s. 143(3) of the IT Act. Interest under s. 215 and/or 217 was directed to be charged while passing the orders under s. 143(3) except in the following cases: (i) Shri Vinay Chand Kankaria 1974-75 (ii) Shri Rajendra Kumar Kankaria 1974-75 (iii) Shri Gyanchand Kankaria 1975-76 (iv) Shri Surendra Kumar 1974-75 In these cases also interest under s. 215 and/or 217 was demanded in the notices of demand issued under s. 156 along with assessment orders. Calculation of interest was, however, made in these cases also in the Forms ITNS 150 under the signatures of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the dates of passing orders under s. 155. With regard to charging of interest for this period, the AAC held that such interest could be charged only upto the date of passing the regular assessment, i.e., when order under s. 143(3) was made and not upto the dates when orders under s. 155 were passed. He, therefore, held that there was no mistake apparent from the record so as charging of interest for the enhanced period was concerned. He, therefore, deleted the interest levied for such period though he upheld the levy of the interest originally charged. The Revenue is aggrieved against the above finding of the AAC deleting the interest charged for the enhanced periods. 3. s. 215/217 enjoin that where provisions of these sections are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original order under s. 143 to the date of passing the order under s. 155. Apart from the above authorities, both sides have relied upon a number of other judicial pronouncements. 4. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. From the authorities relied upon by the rival parties, it is clear that the issue is debatable as to what is regular assessment as mentioned in s. 215/217 of the IT Act. Since this is a debatable issue, in our opinion, the ITO had no jurisdiction under s. 154 to charge further interest in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Volkart Bros. and Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). We, therefore, do not find any jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the ld. AAC so far as de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
