9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered partnership firm of partners, which is the petitioner before me, is an assessee on the file of the ITO, Assessment-4, Circle-II, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1976-77 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1976, the petitioner filed its return under the I.T. Act, 1961 (" the Act "), on August 31, 1976, instead of filing the same on July 31, 1976, which was the last day fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T v. Brijlal Lohia and Mahabir Prosad Khemka [1980] 124 ITR 485 (Cal). Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel of the Income-tax Department, appearing for the respondent in justifying the impugned order contends that the month referred to in rule II 9A of the Rules should be reckoned as a period of 30 days and so reckoned, the levy of interest was legal and valid. In support of his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alendar for the month of August, 1976, would also include August 31, 1976, which would be "for less than month " of that month. In Kadri Mills' case [1977] 106 ITR 846 (Mad) and Brijlal Lohia and Mahabir Prosad Khemka's case [1980] 124 ITR 485 (Cal), the High Courts of Madras and Calcutta construing the term " month " in the context of imposing penalty under the Act have taken the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the views expressed by the High Court of Allahabad in Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills' case [1974] 97 ITR 285. Section 139(8) of the Act read with rule II 9A of the Rules empowers the ITO to levy interest for not " less than a month " only and not for period of 30 days as in the present case. In this view, the levy of interest by the ITO was unauthorised and illegal. On this short ground, the order m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
