Carried-forward loss and penal interest under income tax law: rate-only income does not reduce loss, and no appeal lies against correct penal interest.

For computing carried-forward business loss, income that is includible only for rate purposes and not taxable in the assessee's hands does not reduce the loss; the carried-forward loss was therefore computed by excluding the unregistered firm income. A constitutional challenge to section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was rejected because the provision had already been upheld and was not treated as ultra vires. No appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against penal interest correctly computed under section 18A(6), because the appellate scheme did not confer a right of appeal merely by reason of the levy forming part of the assessment order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the loss to be carried forward under section 24(2) for the assessment year 1950-51 was Rs. 20,933 or Rs. 32,793 including the amount of Rs. 11,860; (ii) Whether section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was ultra vires the legislature; (iii) Whether any appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against levy of penal interest correctly computed under section 18A(6).

Issue (i): Whether the loss to be carried forward under section 24(2) for the assessment year 1950-51 was Rs. 20,933 or Rs. 32,793 including the amount of Rs. 11,860.

Analysis: The loss of the assessee's business was to be computed without reducing it by the profit received from the unregistered firm, because that profit, though includible for rate purposes, was not taxable in the assessee's hands. The earlier computation made by the Income-tax Officer could not be sustained in view of the governing principle that exempt or rate-only income does not diminish the carried-forward business loss. The objection based on finality of the prior computation could not be entertained on the record.

Conclusion: The answer was in favour of the assessee. The correct amount of loss to be carried forward was Rs. 20,933 plus Rs. 11,860.

Issue (ii): Whether section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was ultra vires the legislature.

Analysis: The constitutional challenge to section 23A had already been negatived by binding authority, and the provision was treated as valid. The assessee's objection based on Article 14 could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The answer was against the assessee. Section 23A was not ultra vires the legislature.

Issue (iii): Whether any appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against levy of penal interest correctly computed under section 18A(6).

Analysis: The statute did not confer a specific right of appeal against penal interest under section 18A(6), and the distinction between tax liability and penal interest was maintained in the appellate scheme. The later Supreme Court decisions did not overrule the earlier authority that such levy was not appealable.

Conclusion: The answer was against the assessee. No appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the levy of penal interest correctly computed under section 18A(6).

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly in the assessee's favour and partly against him, with the carried-forward loss issue decided for the assessee and the constitutional and penal-interest issues decided against him.

Ratio Decidendi: For computing loss to be carried forward, income includible only for rate purposes cannot be used to reduce the loss, and in the absence of a statutory provision creating a right of appeal, a levy of penal interest under section 18A(6) is not appealable merely because it forms part of the assessment order.

---