9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1966-67 also, similar ground was urged in the memo of appeal. We were farther informed by the counsel for the assessee that the controversy referred to in the question under consideration is now relevant only for the purposes of the assessment year 1965-66. The AAC held that the order of the ITO passed under s. 139(1) of the Act was not an appealable order and he, therefore, declined to entertain any challenge with regard to the levy of interest by the ITO under s. 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken in appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was competent to prefer the appeals against the order of levy of interest by the ITO under s. 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that the appeal filed was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that case took the view on a construction of the provisions of s. 30 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, that the correct position would be that the " assessee will have no right of appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner merely against the quantum of penal interest charged, i.e., merely for the purpose of raising a contention that the interest charged is excessive or should be reduced or should have been waived altogether" (p.986). It was also held that " an appeal would lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if he (assessee) were to deny altogether his liability to pay such interest on the ground that he is not liable to pay advance tax at all or that the amount of advance tax determined, as payable, by the Income-tax Officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Assistant Commissioner was competent under s. 30(1) of the 1922 Act". Mr. Joshi pointed out the observations of the Full Bench thus : "The position under the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be the same inasmuch as section 246(c) of that Act provides for an appeal in a case where the assessee denies its liability to be assessed under this Act and this phrase would bear the same meaning or construction as it bore under section 30(1) of the 1922 Act". It was pointed out by Mr. Joshi that the appeal filed by the present assessee was not one in which he denied his liability to be assessed under the Act and that the assessee was not, therefore, entitled to file an appeal challenging the levy of interest. Mr. Patil, appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the ground that the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under the Act. However, we do not think it necessary to go into this question because the appeal memo nowhere states that the assessee was denying his liability to be assessed under the Act. It was only when we orally enquired how the appeal fell under s. 246(c) and how the assessee should be considered as denying his liability to be assessed under the Act that we were informed that the challenge was that the ITO had no jurisdiction to levy interest under s. 139(1) read with s. 139(8) because the provision relating to interest was not applicable in the case of the assessee-an argument which cannot be considered for the first time at this stage. As directed by the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
