9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered by G. P. SINGH C.J.-This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referring for our answer the following questions of law : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the rectification order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid and without jurisdiction ? (2) Whether, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s then in force, was 1st March, 1969. The assessment order by the ITO was passed on 2nd March, 1972. The assessee was allowed interest amounting to Rs. 23,462 under s. 214. Thereafter, proceedings for reassessment were taken on the ground that income in respect of self-occupied property had escaped assessment. The reassessment order was passed on 1st February, 1975. The ITO then rectified the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the period of limitation of four years from the date of the original order of assessment, i.e., 2nd March, 1972, and, secondly, that the question, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to interest under s. 214, was a debatable question of law and it could not constitute a mistake apparent on the record. The Tribunal's view was that even after reassessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent High Courts. The Gujarat, the Punjab Haryana and the Madras High Courts are of the view that even though advance tax is not paid on the due dates mentioned in s. 211, yet if it is paid in the financial year before lst April, the assessee is entitled to interest under s. 214: [See Chandrakant Damodardas v. ITO [1980] 123 ITR 748 (Guj), CIT v. Rohtak Delhi Transport P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
