9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961, the ITO called upon the assessee to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,414 within 35 days of the service of the said notice. It was mentioned therein that if the assessee did not pay the amount within the period specified in the notice, he would be liable to pay interest at 12 per cent annum from the date commencing after the end of the period aforesaid, in accordance with s. 220(2) of the IT Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of levying interest under s. 220(2) was not appealable, because there was no challenge to the assessment which had given rise to the tax demand. The assesses has now come in further appeal before us and two contentions have been raised. The first is that order was appealable as the assessee had challenged the very liability to pay interest and had not challenged mere quantum of interest. The s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: "...........An assessee can prefer an appeal to the AAC against his regular assessment and urge all contentions which, if accepted, must result in the ITO holding that there was no liability to pay advance tax and, therefore, there was not liability to penal interest, or, even in an appeal preferred against an order charging penal interest, it would be open to him to raise a contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand made by that letter which was to be satisfied. The demand made earlier was for an incorrect amount and when fresh demand for correct amount was made, the earlier demand stood superseded. The assessee complied with the revised demand within stipulated time and, as such, there was not liability to pay any interest. There is thus challenge to the very liability to pay any interest and not to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
