TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (1) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... International Ltd. decided to sell the said shares. For the said sale M/s. Grindlays Bank Ltd. acted as an agent on behalf of M/s. Rallis International Ltd. The ITO passed an order dated March 29, 1974, under s. 163(1)(c) of the Act declaring the assessee as an agent of the said non-resident company, M/s. Rallis International Ltd. The assessee challenged the said assessment of the ITO before the AAC and one of the grounds raised therein was that interest under s. 139(8) of the Act should not have been charged. The AAC set aside the order of the ITO in the matter of charging of interest under s. 139(8) of the Act and remanded the case to the ITO for consideration by him of all the facts and circumstances of the case and to decide afresh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly or through its statutory agent. We are of the view that all these things require consideration by the Income-tax Officer for the purpose of deciding whether the interest under section 139 should be waived or reduced under the Rules and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, in our view, rightly sent the matter back to the Income-tax Officer on this point for consideration of all the facts and circumstances and for taking a decision whether the interest should be charged or whether it should be waived or it should be reduced as provided under the Rules." Pursuant to the said directions by the Tribunal, the ITO went into the question of charging of interest u/s. 139(8) and held: "It is not disputed that the assessee's inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest and remanded the case to the ITO for consideration by him of all the facts and circumstances for taking a decision whether interest be charged or whether it should be waived or it should be reduced as provided under the I.T. Rules. The Tribunal, thereafter, noted in its order that, on further appeal, another Bench of the Tribunal had sustained the order of the AAC and the matter had been remanded to the ITO. The Tribunal, however, upheld the order passed by the ITO on remand only on the ground that M/s. Grindlays Bank Ltd. was an agent of the non-resident company. The Tribunal observed : " Section 160(1)(i) as reproduced in paragraph 9 above lays down that every 'representative assessee' as regards the income in respect of which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st is payable by the said bank under section 139(8) @ 12% from 1-7-73 to 28-5-74. The decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the contrary is incorrect." At the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been referred u/s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act to this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on proper interpretation of the provisions of sections 9, 160, 161 and 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, interest under section 139(8) of the Act could be validly charged against the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. ? " There were some printing mistakes in the question which were corrected at the time of hearing of this reference. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter went back to the Tribunal on further appeal, the Tribunal took note of its earlier direction but failed to consider whether in the facts of this case interest should have been waived or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the ITO did not exercise his discretion in the matter of charging of interest bearing in mind all the relevant and necessary factors which the Tribunal in its order of remand bad directed him to consider. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the discretion to levy interest under s. 139(8) was not exercised properly and the order of the Tribuna1 was not carried out in the manner it was directed to be carried out. When the matter went back to the Tribunal once again, the Tribunal in....