TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... negatived by all the authorities including the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer had levied interest under section 139 for belated filing of the return by the assessee. When the levy of interest was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the time of the hearing of the appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that an appeal against levy of interest was not maintainable and rejected the contentions raised by the assessee. At the time of hearing of the appeals by the Tribunal, the assessee filed additional grounds contesting the levy of interest. The Tribunal held that even though an order under section 139(1) levying interest was not as such appealable, the levy of interest, could be contested in an appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 139(1) could be sustained only if the assessee had made an application for extension of time before the Income-tax Officer is correct ? " As regards question No. (1), the matter is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961. The Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against the assessment, the levy of interest could also be challenged. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows (p. 966): " Now, the question is whether orders levying interest under sub-section (8) of section 139 and under section 215 are appealable under section 246 of the Income-tax Act. Clause (c) of section 246 provides an appeal against an order where the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely to the quantum thereof. It is clear from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee had contested the levy of interest itself before him. Hence the contention urged by learned counsel for the Revenue that the appeal before the Tribunal was confined to the quantum of interest and not to the levy as such has to be rejected. Once that contention is rejected, question No. (1) has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. (2), even as it is framed, depends on the answer given to question No. (1). As question No. (1) has been answered against the Revenue, question No. (2) is also answered against the Revenue. Question No. (3) arises on account of the following observations made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is a delay in filing the return. This position is recognised by the Supreme Court in the decision in Ganesh Dass Sreeram v. ITO [1988] 169 ITR 221. It is useful to refer to the following observations at page 226 : " The substantive provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 139 specify the time within which the return has to be filed. The provisos to sub-sections ( 1) and (2) confer power on the Income-tax Officer to extend the date for filing the return on an application in that regard made by the assessee. So, it is clear that the expression 'time allowed in sub-section (4) of section 139 is not confined only to the extension of time granted by the Income-tax Officer, but also to the time originally fixed for the filing of ret....