9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment on January 31, 1978, the Income-tax Officer charged interest under section 139(8) for the belated filing of the return. Subsequently, he rectified the assessment under section 154 of the Act by his proceedings dated June 20, 1978, and reduced the amount of interest to Rs. 2,855 reckoning the delay in filing the return as one month. The audit raised objections and the order was again rectified under section 154 on April 28, 1979, enhancing the interest to Rs. 5,680 reckoning the delay as two months. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this order, but the Tribunal, on appeal by the assessee, held that there was genuine scope for debate on the question whether the interest is to be reckoned for one month or two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The senior standing counsel for the Department was, therefore, at pains to establish that the mistake was one which was apparent and obvious and that rule 119A did not admit of any interpretation other than that canvassed by the Revenue. He relies on the Notes on Clauses appended to the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1969, by which section 295(2)(kk) was sought to be introduced in the Act. It is under the said provision that the Central Government is empowered to make rules prescribing the procedure to be followed in calculating the interest payable by the assessee including the rounding off of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efinition of the term "month" in the General Clauses Act, 1897, interest has to be calculated with reference to a whole month and not with reference to any period of less than a month. In that case, the return was filed on August 31, 1976, while it was due on July 31, 1976. The learned judge held that interest under section 139(8) of the Act read with rule 119A of the Income-tax Rules was not leviable as the period of delay was only less than a month. Having regard to these conflicting views on the point we are not inclined to hold that the answer to the question raised is so obvious or patent that it does not admit of any doubt at all. The question on the other hand poses grounds for debate or argument and the matter will have to be exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
