1986 (11) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ln. 2 to the provisions of sub-s. 8 of s. 139." 3. While Smt. Manjari Kakkar, ld. departmental representative has submitted that interest under s. 139(8) had been rightly charged by the ITO by treating the assessee as an Unregistered Firm, it has been vehemently contended by Shri K.R. Manjani, ld. authorised counsel of the assessee that the order passed by the AAC was justified. Mr. Manjani has first of all submitted that the view taken by the AAC being in accordance with decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Mahadeshwara Lorry Service (1980) 18 CTR (Kar) 147 : (1981) 129 ITR 516 (Kar) and being further in keeping with the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal reported in ITO vs. Lachmandas Raghunath Das Parihar ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Expln. 2 of s. 139 (8). 5. The provisions of s. 139(8)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 provided that where a return of income is not furnished within the time-limit prescribed under sub-s. (1) of s. 139 or within the time permitted in a notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 139, the assessee shall be liable to pay interest whether or not the ITO had extended the date of the furnishing of the return. It is further provided in Expln. 2 of s. 139(8) that for the purposes of this sub-section, where the assessee is a registered firm, the tax payable on the total income shall be the amount of tax which would have been payable if the firm had been assessed as an unregistered firm. In other words the cumulative effect of the provisions of s. 139(8)(a) and Expln....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39(8) on a registered firm by treating it as unregistered firm and we are aware of several cases which are reported in Mahendra Kumar Ishwarlal vs. Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 101 (Mad), Ganesh Dass Sree Ram vs. ITO (1974) 93 ITR 19 (Gau), Mahendra Kumar Ishwarlal vs. Union of India (1974) 94 ITR 65 (Mad), Chhota Lal and Co. vs. ITO (1976) 105 ITR 230 (Guj), Jiwan Mal Hospital vs. ITO (1979) 11 CTR (MP) 184 : (1979) 119 ITR 439 (MP), Hindustan Steel Forgings vs. CIT (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 389 : (1980) 121 ITR 793 (P&H): 19 Taxman 388, Chemmeens vs. ITO & Anr. (1984) 42 CTR (Ker) 89 : (1984) 149 ITR 233 (Ker) and Geo Food vs. ITO (1985) 45 CTR (Ker) 142 : (1984) 150 ITR 726 (Ker) and which support the view which we have taken. The decision of ....