AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this common order. The petitioners are assessees under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner in W.P. No. 41114 of 2003 filed his return of agricultural income for the assessment year 1996-97 on March 18, 1998. This return, the petitioner was required to file by July 31, 1996. On such return, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment as per his order dated March 16, 1999, and the Assessing Officer on noticing that there was a delay in filing the return of income, proposed levy of interest under section 18(3A) of the Act. After affording an opportunity to the assessee, by his order dated January 31, 2002, levied a sum of Rs. 81,764 as interest payable by the assessee due to the delayed f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment, on the amount of the tax payable on the total agricultural income as determined on regular assessment as reduced by the tax paid, if any." The submission of Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the levy of interest under these provisions is not reasonable, that the petitioner in fact at the time of filing of the return had paid whatever taxes were due as per the returns that they were filing and the petitioners, have become liable to pay certain further amounts only for the reason that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the returns which has been filed, but is determining the amount over and above what had been indicated by the petitioners as the tax liability. Learned counsel submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of the petitioners. On the aspect of understanding the provisions of section 18(3A) of the Act, Sri Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the corresponding provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, viz., section 234A. Learned counsel has also brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. In so far as the levy of interest under the provisions of section 18(3A) of the Act is concerned undisputedly, it is in the nature of a compensatory payment and interest is confined to the shortfall in payment of the tax liability and in respect of the period of delay beyond the permitted time. The amount that was due to the Revenue at a specified point of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and one fourth per cent, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,- (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending on the date of furnishing of the return; or (b) where no return has been furnished, ending on the date of completion of the assessment under section 144, on the amount of the tax on the total income as determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid and any tax deducted or collected at source. Explanation 1. - In this section, 'due date' means the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. In fact in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court the Legislature has stepped in and Explanation 4 to section 234A of the Income-tax Act, has now been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001, and this provision has been given retrospective effect from April 1, 1989. In fact the provisions of section 18(3A) of the State Act and section 234A of the Central Act can now be said to be similar inasmuch as there was no such Explanation in the State Act from the very beginning. The decision of the Supreme Court though does not constitute a direct authority for the interpretation of the provisions of section 18(3A) of the Act, the indicat....