9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded the jurisdiction by admitting without considering the delay of the last day being the filing day of appeal for which no prayer or petition was made ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal bypassing the argument of counsel for the assessee made in respect of fraud, framing the charge in the notice under section 154 and without withdrawing the power delegated by the Income-tax Officer to his subordinate in rectifying the alleged mistake (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the reading of the assessment order delegating the power by the Incometax Officer to charge interest, reason for fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest on above from July 1, 1979 to December 31, 1980, comes to Rs. 5,886. Charge interest as above and issue demand notice and challan along with the copy of the order." Against the said order of the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed as follows : "It is a fact that the Income-tax Officer has imposed penal interest under section 139(8) for the first time taking the help of section 154 and this matter is highly debatable and different courts held different Views in these circumstances. Hence, the imposition of penal interest under section 139(8) amounting to Rs. 5,886 with the help ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, the Income-tax Officer directed that interest should be charged. But, by mistake, it was not included in the demand notice and accordingly, it was subsequently rectified. It is not a case where no interest was charged under section 139(8) and the Income-tax Officer later thought that interest should have been charged and invoked section 154 to include interest. There is no such dispute in this case. Interest was directed to be charged by the Income-tax Officer. Once the Income-tax Officer had, in the assessment order itself, directed that interest should be charged which had not been done, it is a mistake apparent from the record. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
