9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2,89,480 on which the income-tax payable was Rs. 1,71,872. However, as an advance tax of Rs. 1,32,300 was already paid by the assessee-company, a demand of Rs. 39,572 only was raised against the assessee. The demanded amount was paid on 18-12-1976. The assessee-company went in appeal before the AAC against certain additions made in the assessment order. The AAC allowed the appeal of the assessee by his orders dated 29-9-1977. The ITO gave effect to the AAC's orders on 15-10-1977. According to the orders of the ITO dated 15-10-1977 income-tax payable by the assessee was reduced to Rs. 1,16,609. Consequent upon it a refund of Rs. 55,263 was issued to the assessee. A further refund of Rs. 3,436 was also issued by another order of the ITO dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows: "I have considered the matter in detail. The very fact that the Kerala High Court has pronounced two differing judgments on the issue is sufficient to show that the issue involved is highly debatable. The ITO acted absurdly and erroneously in invoking section 154 to delete the interest already charged. There was no mistake, of law or, of fact, which would be apparent from the assessee's records, enabling the Income-tax Officer to invoke section 154. The assessee's application dated 23-7-1981 requesting the Income-tax Officer to delete the interest charged under section 220(2) was misconceived, and the Income-tax Officer's order accepting it under section 154 was quite erroneous. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Income-tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the decision reported in A.K. Haji v. ITO [1982] 31 CTR (Ker.) 278 : [1983] 141 ITR 120 (Ker.). The facts of this case are substantially different from the facts of the present case. The crucial difference is that in [1982] 31 CTR (Ker.) 278 : [1983] 141 ITR 120 (Ker.), there was no occasion or a refund of tax. The assessee did not pay the tax as demanded under section 156 of the Act. In such a case, the department is fully justified in making the demand for payment of interest. This Court rightly held so.... " Therefore, it can be seen that in K.P. Abdul Kareem Hajee's case though a demand was raised no payment was paid under the demand, whereas in this case, whenever a demand was raised the amount thereunder was duly paid by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
