TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (2) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a limited liability company. The assessment year is 1947-48 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1946. 3. The assessee company paid under section 18A of the Income- tax Act a sum of Rs. 12,95,508, in three equal instalments of Rs. 4,31,836, each prior to 15th March, 947. The Income-tax Officer made assessment in respect of the assessment year under reference on 30th March, 1948, on a total income of Rs. 58,71,656. The total tax liability of the assessee in respect of this assessment year amounted to Rs. 25,73,485-7-0. The assessee had already paid under section 18A Rs. 12,95,508. The Income-tax Officer further calculated interest in respect of payments made under section 18A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; "The Central Government shall pay simple interest at two per cent. per annum on any amount payable in accordance with the provisions of this section before the 1st day of April, 1955, and paid accordingly from the date of payment to the date of provisional assessment made under section 23B, or if no such assessment has been made to the date of assessment (hereafter called the regular assessment) made under sections 23 of the income, profits and gains of the previous year for an assessment for the year next following the year in which the amount was payable." 7. It may be noted here that the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs paid by the assessee was not a payment made under section 18A. It was a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law as to the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee objects to the question raised by the Department on the ground that no application for stating a case to the High Court was made by the Commissioner of Income-tax within the period prescribed by law. As the question raised arises out of the order of the Tribunal and is a question of law, we think that it should be referred to the High Court. 10. Relying upon the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Jagadish Prasad Ramnath[*] the Departmental Representative contended that no appeal lay to the Tribunal as the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not an order made under section 31 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal disagreed with that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neral, for the Commissioner JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHAGLA, C.J.--The assessee paid advance tax under section 18A and its assessment under section 23 was completed on the 30th of March, 1948. The assessee appealed against the order of assessment and that order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 15th of November, 1951, and he directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. This fresh assessment was made on the 25th of January, 1954. The Income-tax Officer allowed the assessee interest on he advance payment from the date of payment till the 30th of March 1948. The contention of the assessee was that he was entitled to interest up to the 25th of January, 1954. This cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment. Can it be said that, if interest had ceased to run, the running of interest was revived when that order of assessment was set aside and a different terminus was fixed for the calculation of interest? It seems to us that what the Legislature contemplated in using the expression "the date of the assessment" was the factual date of the assessment and it was not considering the legality or the validity of the assessment made. It wanted to fix two termini for the calculation of interest. With regard to one terminus there was no difficulty: that was the date of payment of advance tax by the assessee. The other terminus had to be fixed and the other terminus was the date when the regular assessment was made. That terminus having been fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment of Rs. 6 lakhs, which was paid by the assessee under the order of assessment. But once the order of assessment is made, the liability to pay arises, and even though the order may be subsequently set aside, there is no obligation upon the Department to pay any interest in respect of the amounts which they recovered as tax under the original assessment order. If we are right in this view, then the further question that arises need not be decided. The question is whether an appeal from the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to give to the assessee interest for the longer period was appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Department's contention is that the appeal does not fall within the terms of sect....