Revision limitation on waiver of interest runs from the separate rejection order, not the assessment order.

Limitation for revision under section 33A(2) ran from the separate order rejecting waiver or reduction of interest, not from the original assessment, where the issue had not been considered and no notice had been given to the assessee. The article also notes that an order charging interest under section 18A(6) was not an appealable order under section 30(1), so the issue could not be treated as having been made the subject of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of the statutory bar in section 33A(2)(c). On that reasoning, the revision applications were not time-barred and were to be restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision applications under section 33A(2) were barred by limitation when counted from the date of the assessment order instead of the later order rejecting the applications for waiver or reduction of interest; (ii) Whether the revision petitions were barred because the question of penal interest had been made the subject of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the revision applications under section 33A(2) were barred by limitation when counted from the date of the assessment order instead of the later order rejecting the applications for waiver or reduction of interest.

Analysis: The right to seek waiver or reduction of interest under the proviso to section 18A(6) was independent of the regular assessment where the question had not in fact been considered and no notice had been given to the assessee. The order passed on the applications under section 35 read with rule 48 and rule 40 was therefore a separate and independent order, and the period for revision had to run from that order, not from the assessment order.

Conclusion: The revision applications were not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision petitions were barred because the question of penal interest had been made the subject of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: An order charging interest under section 18A(6) was not an appealable order under section 30(1). Since no appeal lay on that issue, the matter could not be said to have been made the subject of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of the bar in section 33A(2)(c).

Conclusion: The revision petitions were not barred on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the Commissioner was unsustainable, and the revision petitions had to be restored for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the question of waiver or reduction of penal interest has not been considered at the time of regular assessment and is later decided on a separate application, limitation for revision runs from the later order, and a non-appealable levy of interest cannot be treated as having been made the subject of an appeal to attract the statutory bar on revision.

---