9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is reference at the instance of the Department reads thus "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since penalty proceedings under section 273(a) have been dropped by the Income-tax Officer, section 216 which provides for the levy of interest in cases of underestimate is clearly not applicable and, therefore, the levy of interest under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, 1971. The application was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Tribunal, it was, inter alia, urged for the first time that penalty proceedings having been dropped, it was obvious, that interest under section 216 could not have been charged. In other words, the submission was that if the finding that the assessee had fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... underestimated" used in section 216 meant the same thing as a statement which the assessee knew or had reason to believe to be untrue within the meaning of section 273(a). The argument thus was that unless charging of interest under section 216 must automatically fail with the dropping of the penalty proceedings under section 273(a), the case would not fall within the ambit of section 154. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, it would require arguments to convince the court or the Tribunal that it would be so. As pointed out by Dr. Balasubramanian, the provision in the two sections, to say the least, are not in pari materia. The phraseology used is different. It is, therefore, not possible to accept Shri Dalvi's submission that the charging of interest in the facts of the case amounted to an obvious and glari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
