Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kapoor Chand Ram Chand on 14 March, 1995
Author: V.G. Palshikar
Bench: V.G. Palshikar
JUDGMENT V.K. Singhal, J.
1. On the request of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 3, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while completing the assessment for the first time under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
2. The facts of the case are that in this case, a notice under Section 148 was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee who is a partner in the firm, Kapoor Chand Ram Chand, Alwar. A property was constructed at Alwar by Kapoor Chand and the total cost of construction was not disclosed as no return was filed under Section 139(1) and in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 148, the return was filed. The interest under Section 139(8) as well as under Section 217 was charged from the assessee. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who found that there is nothing illegal in the charging of interest and since the income was to be determined in accordance with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was directed that recalculation be made accordingly. In the second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was observed that the assessment under Section 147 is not a regular assessment and, therefore, interest under Sections 217 and 139(8) cannot be charged. It was also submitted that even the first assessment under Section 148 cannot be considered to be a regular assessment within the meaning of Section 214 of the Income-tax Act read with Sections 217 and 139(8). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the charging of interest was not justified.
3. We have considered over the matter. The point in controversy is already concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar [1992] 198 ITR 556, Charles D'Souza v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 694 (Kar), S. Mageshwari v. Asst. CIT [1993] 201 472 (Kar), CIT v. Triple Crown Agencies [1993] 204 ITR 377 (Gauhati) and CIT v. Smt. Padam Kumari Surana [1994] 207 ITR 155 (Raj).
4. Looking to the opinion already given by this court, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer under Section 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the assessments for the first time, were framed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
5. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.