TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said notice and proceedings are illegal. It also prayed for a direction to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs and to prohibit the respondent from recovering an amount of Rs. 13,07,500. Exhibit P-12 is a notice issued under section 156 of the Income-tax Act demanding an amount of Rs. 13,07,500 and exhibit P-13 is the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range 2, Ernakulam, dated April 27, 2000, passed consequent upon the decision made by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under section 244A(2) of the Act by exhibit P-13, the interest mistakenly granted for the period from January 1, 1990, to September 30, 1991, amounting to Rs. 33,07,500 was withdrawn. The learned single judge dismissed the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t report along with the return. The revised return was filed on March 3, 1994, along with the audit report. Therefore, the defect, if any, in the original return was cured. It is also contended that the delay in completing the assessment was not due to any reason on the part of the assessee. Incidentally, a ground was taken that this is not an error apparent on the face of the record. But from exhibit P-3 order, it would appear that the jurisdictional ground under section 154 is not seen pressed into service. The appellate authority, therefore, considered the arguments on the merits and agreed with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. There is nothing to show that the assessee had raised any contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....990, to September 30, 1991, and determined the amount of Rs. 13,07,500 as the balance amount payable by the assessee towards excess refund less amount of Rs. 20,00,000 paid earlier. Exhibit P-12 is only a demand pursuant to exhibit P-13. The above two orders, as already stated, were challenged before the learned single judge. According to the appellant, the delay is not attributable on the part of the assessee in the matter of completing the assessment According to it, the statutory auditor was not appointed in the company by the Government of India as contemplated under section 619(2) of the Companies Act and also under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. As and when the audit was completed, he had enclosed the audit report in Form Nos. 3C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what has been left to be decided by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, is only to be rejected as opposed to the very object of conferring the judgment on the higher authority. Before the Assessing Officer when a question arises as to whether the delay is attributable on the part of the assessee or the Assessing Officer, he himself cannot decide the same, since he will be deciding on his own case. The Legislature, in the circumstances, conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a higher authority, namely, the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner to decide the same. In this regard, it has to be seen that sub-section (2) of section 244A of the Act, though says that the delay so attributable shall be excluded from the pe....