Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (3) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed Form No. 6, seeking extension till October 31, 1977. The reasons given by it are that the accounts had just been audited and finalised ; annual general meeting was to be held on September 29, 1977, statements were under computation and the return form was to be sent. Time was extended till October 31, 1977. But the return was not filed. On October 28, 1977, the petitioner requested further extension till November 30, 1977, for the purpose of collecting details for the computation of income. That was granted. But, even then, the petitioner did not file the return in time. Without getting any further extension, the petitioner filed the return on December 12, 1977, on the basis of which an assessment order was passed by the second responden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the second respondent. He proceeded to pass the order for rectification confirming the proposal to enhance the interest to Rs. 44,160. That order was not challenged by the petitioner. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the original order of assessment dated September 4, 1980, was disposed of on July 24, 1981. The challenge of the petitioner to the levy of interest under the assessment order was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Tribunal, but it did not challenge the levy of interest before the Tribunal. The petitioner sent a communication on January 17, 1983, for waiver of the interest charged under section 139(8) of the Act. In paragraph 2, it is stated as follows : " We request you to kindly waive t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in one year from the date of service of the order dated November 25, 1980, and no reasons are given for the delay in the submission of the application. Hence, the application is not maintainable ; (ii) The assessee had gone in appeal against the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer and one of the grounds raised in the appeal was against the charging of interest. The appeal was decided against the assessee and in the appeal before the Tribunal, no issue has been raised regarding interest. Hence, the revision application under section 264 is not maintainable. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent is in error in ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... can be invoked, rule 117A has been framed, prescribing the said circumstances. Five circumstances have been prescribed in the rule. It is not necessary for the purpose of this order to set them out in detail. The fifth circumstance is where the assessee produces evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that he was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time. Admittedly, this case does not fall under the other four circumstances. The only circumstance, which could be invoked and has been invoked by the petitioner is the fifth circumstance under which he has to satisfy the Assessing Officer that he was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time. When this question was raised by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, though it purports to be against the order dated September 28, 1983, is really and in effect only against the order dated November 25, 1980, which levied interest after rejecting the contention of the petitioner that it had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the return. The order dated September 28, 1983, is nothing but merely pointing out to the petitioner that an order had already been passed on November 25, 1980, and there is no question of reconsidering the subject-matter, at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, the Commissioner is justified in taking the view that the present revision before him is one against the order dated November 25, 1980, and that is beyond the period prescribed b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates