TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal outcome: Mixed ruling, petitioner liable for 11 months' interest.</h1> <h3>K. Balan (Deceased), M.P. Narayanani, K. Sivakumar, K. Sasikumar Shyma Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> K. Balan (Deceased), M.P. Narayanani, K. Sivakumar, K. Sasikumar Shyma Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues involved:Levying interest under section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a block assessment period from 01.04.1988 to 27.03.1998.Detailed Analysis:1. Substantial Questions of Law: The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the levy of interest under section 158BFA(1) without considering legal issues and the justification for interest during a delay in filing the return due to obtaining seized materials.2. Factual Background: A search was conducted in the petitioner's premises on 27.03.1998, leading to the issuance of notices for furnishing documents. The petitioner received copies of seized documents between 18.06.1999 to 22.06.1999 and filed the return on 04.05.2000. The Assessing Officer levied interest for 11 months from 22.06.1999 to 04.05.2000.3. Appeals and Tribunal Orders: The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal resulted in varied decisions regarding the period for levying interest under section 158BFA(1).4. Contending Views: The Revenue argued for interest from the date of the initial notice in 1998, while the petitioner contended interest should start from the date of the Deputy Commissioner's notice in 1999.5. Judicial Analysis: The Court considered the timeline of events and the petitioner's need for seized documents to file a proper return. The Court emphasized the principles of natural justice and excluded the waiting period for documents from the interest calculation.6. Precedents and Legal Interpretation: The Court cited decisions from the High Courts of Karnataka and Delhi to support the exclusion of the waiting period from interest calculation. The Court differentiated a previous case's applicability to the present scenario.7. Judgment: The Court partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue for one substantial question of law and in favor of the petitioner for the other. The Court held the petitioner liable to pay interest for only 11 months, from 22.06.1999 to 04.05.2000, based on the exclusion of the waiting period for seized documents.
TaxTMI 