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>Court Upholds Interest Charges in Reassessment Order</h1> <h3>Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 18, Mumbai., The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai</h3> Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 18, Mumbai., The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - [2022] 441 ... Issues:1. Interpretation of 'regular assessment' under Section 215 of the Income Tax Act.2. Entitlement of Assessing Officer to charge interest under Section 215 despite the absence of a specific direction.3. Justification of Assessing Officer's decision regarding waiver of interest chargeable.Issue 1: Interpretation of 'regular assessment' under Section 215:The case involved an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the interpretation of a 'regular assessment' under Section 215. The questions of law revolved around whether a fresh assessment made to comply with the directions of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 constitutes a 'regular assessment' for the purposes of Section 215. The Supreme Court precedent in Modi Industries Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that the term 'regular assessment' pertains to the original assessment under Section 143 or 144, and subsequent orders to give effect to higher authority's directions do not qualify as regular assessments.Issue 2: Entitlement to charge interest under Section 215:The Assessing Officer had initially charged interest under Section 215 in the original assessment order for the assessment year 1985-86. When a fresh assessment was conducted following the Commissioner's directions under Section 263, the Assessing Officer did not include a specific direction to charge interest under Section 215 in the new order. However, interest was charged in the computation sheet attached to the fresh assessment order. The debate centered on whether the Assessing Officer had the authority to charge interest under Section 215 without a specific direction in the reassessment order.Issue 3: Justification of Assessing Officer's decision on interest waiver:The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax had previously waived a portion of the interest under Section 215 beyond one year from the filing of the return, citing that the delay in finalizing the assessment was not the appellant's fault. However, when a fresh assessment was made following the Commissioner's directions under Section 263, the Assessing Officer reinstated the interest chargeable under Section 215. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that the waiver granted earlier should apply to the reassessment as well. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a complete waiver of interest as per the earlier order, and the Assessing Officer's decision to charge a reduced amount of interest was justified.In conclusion, the court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to charge interest under Section 215 in the fresh assessment order, emphasizing the distinction between a regular assessment and subsequent orders. The court also clarified the applicability of interest waiver provisions under Section 215(4) and Rule 40 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in determining the liability of the appellant for interest payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
