TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a revision petition seeking waiver or remission of interest levied under section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was incompetent merely because assessment proceedings had earlier been carried through appeal and reference stages; (ii) whether the petitioner's approach for relief was vitiated by unreasonable delay.
Issue (i): Whether a revision petition seeking waiver or remission of interest levied under section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was incompetent merely because assessment proceedings had earlier been carried through appeal and reference stages.
Analysis: Interest levied under section 18A(8) was treated as a consequential levy relatable to advance-tax default and not as an inseparable part of the final assessment of total income. The Court relied on the settled position that the relief provisions governing section 18A(6) also applied, mutatis mutandis, to section 18A(8), so that the assessee could seek remission or waiver even where no advance tax had been paid. Accordingly, the pendency or prior completion of assessment appeals did not render the revision petition incompetent.
Conclusion: The objection of incompetency was rejected and the revision petition was held maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's approach for relief was vitiated by unreasonable delay.
Analysis: The Court held that delay had to be judged from the point when the assessment attained practical finality and when the legal position became clear, not from the original assessment year itself. In the circumstances, the interval after the relevant legal uncertainty ended was only a few months, and the official liquidator's need for legal advice and court authority was a relevant mitigating factor. The period could not be characterised as inordinate or unreasonable.
Conclusion: The plea of unreasonable delay was rejected and the delay was held not to bar consideration of relief.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned rejection was set aside, and the revision petitions were directed to be reconsidered on merits in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A levy of interest under section 18A(8) is not part of the assessment itself, and relief from such levy may be sought under the governing remission provisions; delay in seeking such relief must be assessed in light of the date when the assessment and legal position effectively became final.
TaxTMI 
