9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (1) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 51,137.03 due as refund. The firm was, for the assessment year 1951-52, assessed to income-tax under section 23(3), its prayer for refund as a registered firm having been rejected. On the question of status, the petitioner eventually succeeded on a reference to this court under section 66(2). Pursuant to the opinion expressed by this court in the reference, the Tribunal, by its order dated October 19, 1961, directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm under section 26A for the year 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer carried out the direction by an order of his dated February 2, 1962. Thereafter, the same officer worked out the tax effect on the individual assessment of each of the partners and a sum of Rs. 51,137.03 was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpretation to be placed on the proviso, it would follow that the payment of interest on the sum of Rs. 11,298.27 would be irregular. But, in our opinion, the liability to pay interest under the proviso extended to the entire sum of Rs. 62,435.30. Section 66(7) had been enacted in aid of collection of tax. Pendency of a reference to the High Court would not be an excuse and would not also act as a stay of collection of tax. But this provision directs that notwithstanding a pending reference income-tax shall be payable in accordance with the assessment made in the case. That indicates that the subject-matter of the reference should involve and be related to a liability to pay in accordance with the assessment. The expression "assessment "in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to the Finance Act, 1956, is borne in mind. Section 23(5) provided for the procedure in respect of assessment of a firm. As the law stood prior to the Finance Act, 1956, in the case of a registered firm, the sum payable by the firm itself should not be determined but the total income of each partner of the firm, including therein his share of its income, profits and gains of the previous year, shall be assessed and the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment shall be determined. In passing, we may mention that by section 14 of the Finance Act, the aforesaid position was changed. In the case of a registered firm, the sum payable by the firm should be determined. When this court in the reference expressed the view that regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37.03, and that it was adjusted against the tax due from the firm. But the adjustment was towards tax liability of each of the partners assessed individually on his total income inclusive of his share of profits. We are of the view, therefore, that the petitioner would be entitled to interest under the proviso to section 66(7) on the sum of Rs. 51,137.03 from the date of payment to the date of assessment. We have no doubt that the respondent would apply the proviso to section 66(7) accordingly and make suitable direction. We do not think that in a petition for mandamus we can properly direct the respondent to pay the petitioner any sum of money as representing interest. It is the function of the respondent under the said proviso to do it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
