9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional ratio certificate in view of the fact that the final ratio certificate was not available at the time of filing of the said return. The Income-tax Officer proceeded to make the assessment on the basis of the provisional ratio certificate and computed the total Indian income of the petitioner at Rs. 20,24,546 and, on the basis of the said computation of its income, the total tax was determined at Rs: 12,75,463.98. The Income-tax Officer also in the said order imposed penal interest to the extent of Rs. 67,583.28 The amount thus demanded amounted to Rs. 13,43,047.26. The said demand, however, was partially adjusted against the refund of Rs. 13,42,111.19 which was payable by the Revenue authority to the petitioner and a net demand of Rs. 936.07 remained outstanding. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the claim of the petitioner regarding the investment allowance. M/s. James Finlay Co. Ltd., on behalf of the petitioner, thereafter made an application on August 6, 1963, before the Income-tax Officer, ' B ' Ward, Companies District III, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner with a further request for payment of interest by reason of very great delay in granting the refund. The Income-tax Officer thereafter made a refund of Rs. 3,10,998 to the petitioner on November 1, 1972. Immediately thereafter, M/s. James Finlay Co. Ltd., on behalf of the petitioner, by a letter dated December 21, 1972, requested respondent No. 1, to issue a refund voucher for Rs. 8,32,915 representing the estimated quantum of interest without any further delay and in pursuance of which the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 244 of the new Act on September 15, 1973, whereby he allowed a sum of Rs. 8,02,981 being the amount of the total interest payable under section 244 of the new Act. After adjusting the taxes for a sum of Rs. 5,90,191, he determined the net interest refundable at Rs. 2,12,790. In the said order, the Income-tax Officer referred to the direction given on May 29, 1973, to him by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, to allow interest under section 244 of the new Act on the amount of the refund which was withheld by an order made under section 241 of the new Act. In accordance with the said direction, the calculation of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39/C.T/NS/253/63-64 dated 6-11-1965. Subsequently, the CIT directed to adjust part of the refund against taxes of other years and to issue refund order for the balance amount which was done on 30-3-72. CIT, W.B.-II, vide his No. Asst/1961/CT/NS/253/63-64 (SF) dated 29-5-73, directed to allow interest under section 244 on the amount of refund withheld as per his direction, the calculation of interest under section 244 is as follows : ........" In this connection Mr. Pal placed strong reliance on the decision in Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC). In that decision, the Supreme Court observed (p. 613): " It is now well settled as a result of two decisions of this court, one in Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 and the other in Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 913, that circulars issued by, the CBDT tinder s. 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act." Mr. Nanda Lal Pal, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer is within his rights to rectify his own order and by no stretch can it be said that the order dated September 15, 1973, can be ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 297(2)(a) is an enabling provision authorising the taxing authority to invoke either the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act in the event of happening of contingency as envisaged under the statute. The same view has also been expressed by S. P. Mitra J. (as he then was), in the case of CIT v. Rajnagar Tea Company Ltd. [1973] 87 ITR 669 (Cal). While it is true that an error of law can be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, but the question remains to be seen as to whether this directive of the Commissioner as contained the order dated September 15, 1973, can be termed to be an error of such a nature capable of being rectified under section 35 of the Act of 1922. Admittedly, prior to the invocation of the power under section 241 of the 1961 Act by the Commissioner, the concerned Income-tax Officer after production of the final ratio certificate dealt with the matter under section 154/250 of the new Act of 1961. Subsequently, the departmental authority on December 1, 1965, also examined the matter and withheld the question of refund under section 241 of the 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
