9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the estate duty return, the Assistant Controller, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, made a provisional assessment under section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (" the Act "), and created a demand of Rs. 2,12,872. The petitioner filed an objection dated June 21, 1977, against the provisional assessment showing various mistakes that had crept in it. The Assistant Controller completed the regular assessment under section 58 of the Act on March 14, 1981. The petitioner again found certain mistakes in the final assessment order and, therefore, an application purporting to be under section 61 of the Act was made on his behalf. The prayer made in this application was as follows: "A challan for Rs. 12,522 may kindly be issued. A challan for Rs. 52, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted: " In reply the assessee's counsel appeared and stated that he has no objection to the proposed rectification. Accordingly, the assessment is revised." The petitioner was dissatisfied with the order dated June 18, 1982, under section 61. Consequently, he moved an application dated July 31, 1982, against the rectification ordered on June 18, 1982. The petitioner alleged that the withdrawal of deduction of Rs. 16,106 allowed in the original assessment as a debt due on the estate of the deceased in respect of income-tax liability for 1976-77 was unjustified. The petitioner also alleged that the rate of interest as laid down in section 70 of the Act was 4 per cent. and not 6 per cent. at which rate the interest had been calculated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um. We do not accept the contention of the petitioner's counsel that while charging the interest at the rate of 6 per cent., respondent No. 1 acted against any known principles and rules and as such the order imposing interest at that rate was incorrect. The power to charge interest involves an element of discretion and as this discretion has not been arbitrarily, illegally or wrongly exercised, this argument has no substance and is liable to be rejected. The second argument of the petitioner's counsel was that the liability of Rs. 16,106 for income-tax dues for the assessment year 1976-77 was debt due on the estate of the deceased under section 44 of the Act and was rightly deducted in the assessment order dated March 24, 1981, and, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute. It held further (p. 176): "Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. " In the instant case, there was a remedy provided as against the order passed under section 61. Counsel was not right in submitting that since the writ had been entertained and admitted for admission, this court had no power to reject it on the preliminary ground mentioned above. This submission has no substance. If the court can reject a writ petition on the basis of an alternative remedy merely because it has been admitted, it is not understandable as to what is that legal principle which debars the court from rejecting the same on the ground of adequacy of alternative remedy at the time of hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Act. The last submission of the petitioner's counsel was about the invalidity of the order in so far as interest was charged for belated filing of the return. Counsel urged that interest under the proviso to subsection (3) of section 53 could be charged if respondent No.1 had extended the time for filing the return and would have made the extension subject to the condition of payment of interest. As no extension had been granted, the charging of interest was unjustified, being not supported by any provision in the Act. It may be noted here that the application for extension made by the petitioner for filing of the return was rejected by the Assistant Controller on June 5,1976, and while doing so, he remarked; " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Legislature has not given to it. In the Income-tax Act, Parliament specifically provided in subsection (8) of section 139 for charging of interest for belated returns. Under this Act, interest is automatic irrespective of the assessee's applying for time or of the Income-tax Officer allowing time. Sub-section (3) of section 53 provides that every person accountable for estate duty shall, within six months of the death of the deceased, deliver to the Controller an account in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner of all the properties in respect of which estate duty is payable. This period of six months can, however, be extended under the proviso appended to it. The proviso confers power on the Controller to extend the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
