9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as "the Act"), for the assessment year 1972-73. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as Esso dealers in Thanjavur. The firm was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 70,300 by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1972-73 as against the return of income filed by the assessee on May 26, 1973, admitting a total income of Rs. 60,406. While making the assessment on a total income of Rs. 70,300, the Income-tax Officer charged a sum of Rs. 3,416 towards interest treating the firm as an unregistered firm for the purpose of calculation of interest as per section 139(8). The petitioner made a request to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to waive the interest But that request was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gged on to the status in which the assessee is assessed to income-tax. The classification of registered firms which have not filed returns within the specified time as separate class for the purpose of payment of interest under section 139(8) does not bear any relationship to the object that is to be achieved by the relevant section and hence it is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of a single judge of the Karnataka High Court in M Nagappa v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 32 and Addl. CIT v. Mahadeshwara Lorry Service [1981] 129 ITR 516. In M Nagappa v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 32 (Kar), Venkataramiah J. (as he then was) held that the object of levy of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlal Co. v. Union of India [1973] 91 ITR 101 on appeal [1974] 94 ITR 65 (DB) has been accepted by the Gauhati High Court in Ganesh Das Sreeram v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 19, by the Gujarat High Court in Chhotalal Co. v. ITO [1976] 105 ITR 230, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jiwamal Hospital v. ITO [1979] 119 ITR 439, by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Hindustan Steel Forgings v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 793 and by the Calcutta High Court in Mohanlal Soni v. Union of India [1983] 143 ITR 436. Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal Co. v. Union of India [1974] 94 ITR 65 was a decision of a Division Bench of this court to which one of us was a party wherein an identical question as is now being raised by the petitioner has been specifically dealt with and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have found acceptance from the other High Courts, such as, Gauhati High Court, Gujarat High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Punjab Haryana High Court and Calcutta High Court. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision in Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal Co. v. Union of India [1974] 94 ITR 65 (Mad) requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court. Since the question raised in this case is squarely covered by the said decision of the Division Bench in Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal Co. v. Union of India [1974] 94 ITR 65 (Mad) which decision has also found acceptance in the other High Courts and having regard to the reasoning given by the Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
