1982 (1) TMI 80 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal on interest, confirms penalty proceedings. Commissioner's jurisdiction upheld.

Star Diamond Tools. Versus First Income-Tax Officer.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the direction to charge interest under section 139(8) but confirming the directive to initiate ... Revision, Orders Prejudicial To Revenue Issues:1. Whether the Commissioner's order directing the ITO to charge interest under section 139(8) and initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) was justified.2. Whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to take action under section 263 based on the errors found in the assessment order.Analysis:1. The appeal was made against the Commissioner's order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the ITO to charge interest under section 139(8) and initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a). The Commissioner found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the late filing of the return and failure to charge interest as per section 139(8). The assessee argued that since there was a refund and no loss to the revenue, interest and penalty were unjustified. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was within his power to take action under section 263 regarding the errors in charging interest under section 139(8) but overturned the decision on directing interest to be charged, as it was compensatory and not applicable when a refund was made. However, the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) based on the Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Court decisions.2. The second issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to take action under section 263 based on errors in the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to various court decisions, including the Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts, which held that failure to levy interest or initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment could be considered an error prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the absence of an order regarding interest or penalty in the assessment order rendered it non-erroneous. It concluded that the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to direct the ITO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) even if not done during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order in this regard, citing the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the direction to charge interest under section 139(8) but confirming the directive to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) based on the errors found in the assessment order.