9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs had occurred in filing the return. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the return filed by it, Rs. 31,056 was the tax payable, out of which a sum of Rs. 11,012 had been paid as advance tax and a sum of Rs. 1,634 had been deducted at source. The balance of Rs. 18,410 was deposited by challan on August 30, 1975, by means of cheque issued on August 19, 1975. The case of the petitioner further is that return for the assessment year 1975-76 had also been simultaneously filed. The tax payable according to it for the year 1975-76 as per return was Rs. 22,330 out of which Rs. 16,280 had been deposited as advance tax and Rs. 4,179-27 had been deducted at source. A sum of Rs. 4,540.73 was the balance of tax for the year 1975-76 which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act was concerned. A writ petition, being No. 952 of 1981, was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dated March 5, 1981, in so far as the application for waiver/reduction of interest was dismissed. This writ petition was allowed on February 28, 1982, and the Commissioner of Income-tax to whom the aforesaid application had been made was directed to decide the question of waiver/reduction of interest afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The application for waiver/reduction of interest was, however, again dismissed, after hearing the petitioner, by the Commissioner of Income-tax on August 30, 1982. It is this order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, a copy whereof has been filed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount which was in excess of the tax payable for the year 1975-76 to be refunded under section 141A of the Act. According to the petitioner, when the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order dated March 17, 1976, refused to take into consideration the deposit of Rs. 18,410 aforesaid as a deposit for the assessment year 1973-74, it deposited the said amount over again on April 15, 1976. This explanation of the petitioner obviously did not find favour with the Commissioner of Income-tax and he treated the subsequent deposit made on April l5, 1976, as aforesaid as the deposit of tax for the year 1973-74. The deposit of this amount on August 30, 1975, was treated to be deposit for the year 1975-76 in view of that year being mentioned in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind it difficult to agree with this submission. Even in the aforesaid decision, emphasis had been placed on the date on which the penalty was imposed. In the instant case, the order of assessment was passed on March 17, 1976, i.e., after section 273A had been inserted with effect from October 1, 1975. Clause (iii) of section 273A(1) of the Act contemplates reduction or waiver of the amount of interest " paid or payable under sub-section (8) of section 139. In the instant case, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the amount of interest became payable after March 17, 1976, i.e., the date on which the order of assessment was passed, and even if there was any doubt in regard to the date on which this amount became payable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held is that since the amount deposited on August 30, 1975, was considered in the assessment year 1975 and the assessee was allowed refund of the excess tax paid and since under the taxing provisions each assessment year was independent by itself, tax paid for one year could have been considered in that year alone. Since the sum of Rs. 18,410, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax, was deposited on August 30, 1975, vide challan mentioning the assessment year as 1975-76, it was rightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as payment for that year. In our opinion, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that a very hypertechnical view of the matter has been taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax. For purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orms for both the years were filled in simultaneously by the clerk of counsel, he committed the inadvertent error of mentioning 1975-76 as the assessment year not only in the challan meant for the year 1975-76 but also in the challan for the year 1973-74. When the Income-tax Officer, however, did not agree with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner in this behalf and passed the order of assessment on March 17, 1976, treating the deposit of Rs. 18,410 made on August 30, 1975, as a deposit not for the assessment year 1973-74 but for the year 1975-76 as mentioned in the challan, the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 18,410 over again on April 15, 1976. It is true that refund of the tax which turned out to be in excess of account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
