9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first application is by a partner of the firm, M/s. Nilamani Ghosh Partners. The second and third applications are by the firm itself. There was delay in filing of returns of the income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). So far as the firm is concerned, the particulars are as hereunder : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment year Return due Return filed Interest levied under section 139 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1964-1965 1-10-1964 18-3-1969 2,095 1965-1966 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the subsequent demand of penalty may not be contrary to law so far as quantum is concerned ; according to the submission of the petitioner the Income-tax Officer had no power to enhance the demand of interest. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in S. A. L. Narayan Row, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and some decisions of High Courts. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that none of the points raised by the petitioner is to succeed. We give our reasons below : Point No. 1.-It is conceded that the assessee had never asked for extension of time for filing return in respect of any of these years. Sub-section 4(a) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act makes provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. v. Income-tax Officer. That was a case in respect of penalty under section 220(2) of the Act and the court took the view that the rate of interest as provided on the date when default occurred would apply to the facts of the case. We do not agree with the view expressed in the said decision. It is true that Central Act 27 of 1967 has no retrospective effect, but in respect of continuing default after the amendment, in our view, the rate of interest as provided thereunder would apply. Point No. 3.-It is conceded that the interest demanded is not arbitrary and was payable. The Income-tax Officer appears to have made a mistake on the earlier occasion which he has rectified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
