Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1985 (1) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed interpretation of law about which the different High Courts had expressed themselves differently and as such it could not be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record, which could be rectified under section 154. The assessees appealed against the aforesaid orders of the ITO to the AAC, who directed the ITO not to charge interest. For this purpose, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Jagjit Kaur [1980] 126 ITR 540. According to her interest under sections 217 and 139(8) could be charged only in the course of regular assessment proceedings and that the same could not be charged in the course of proceedings initiated under section 148. 3. On behalf of the revenue, the aforesaid finding of the learned AAC is assailed as erroneous and it has been pointed out that the mistake in question cannot be regarded as mistake apparent from the record, because it involves interpretation of statute and in a mistake where interpretation of statute is involved and a debate about its interpretation is possible, it would not be a mistake apparent from record. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be correct to apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to situations which were not visualised by their Lordships while deciding the said case and it will be wrong to hold that the law in regard to the said sections, i.e., section 139(8) and section 217, had also been finally laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court while interpreting the wordings of section 273 and that no controversy with regard to these sections was, therefore, possible in the State of Uttar Pradesh and so action under section 154 would be justified. 7. Sub-section (8) of section 139 does not concern itself with the charging of penalty it concerns itself with the charging of interest for the late submission of the return of income. It reads, so far as it is relevant for our purpose as follows : " 8(a) Where the return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date, or is not furnished, then (whether or not the Income-tax Officer has extended the date for furnishing the return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent per annum, reckoned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Legislature. The Legislature intended that notice under section 148 be deemed to be a notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 139 and further desired that all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. Provisions of sub-section (8) of section 139 would, accordingly, apply to the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 read with section 139(2). The said notice under section 148 has to be treated as if it were a notice under section 139(2) and there is nothing in the language of sub-section (8) of section 139 to exclude the above operation of the deeming provision. On the contrary, clause (iv) of rule 117A makes it specifically clear that interest under section 139(8) is chargeable with regard to a return filed under section 148 read with section 139(2) and that the ITO may waive or reduce such an interest with the prior approval of the IAC. The decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Jagjit Kaur did not concern itself with the above fact situation and, therefore, it would, in our opinion, be wrong to hold that the interpretation placed by their Lordships to the provisions of section 273 would apply mutatis mutandis to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he procedure for completing the assessment whether initiated in terms of section 139 or in terms of section 147. For the purpose of limitation, of course, separate provisions have been made for the proceedings initiated under section 139 and those initiated under section 147, for they relate to different time schedules. But nowhere has it been stated that a proceeding initiated under section 147 cannot be culminated in terms of section 143 or section 144, or that the procedure of assessment provided in Chapter XIV will not apply to proceedings initiated under section 147. In fact, there are no other procedural section for making assessments under the Act than those mentioned in Chapter XIV and section 147 is part of the Chapter XIV dealing with procedure for assessment. Notice issued under section 147, read with section 148, initiates proceedings just as the notice under section 139 does. Proceedings of assessment thus initiated have to follow the procedure indicated in Chapter XIV. Thus, filing of the return in response to the notice under section 148 can be beyond the period stipulated in the notice. Extension of time for filing the return can be granted by virtue of the powers g....