Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 155 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 18A in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
M. Chockalingam & Another vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Madras & ... on 12 October, 1962
(3) When the statement of case was being prepared, the assessed brought it to the notice of the Tribunal that the question regarding levy of special surcharge was concluded by a finding of fact and no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. But as regards the question of levy of extra penal interest the assessed agreed that the question of law did arise but it should not be referred to in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Chochalingam and M. Meyyan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (48 Itr 34), where the Supreme Court having held that the levy of penal interest without sending any notice to the assessed was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and as such illegal.
Section 23 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Officer, Madras vs S. K.Habibullah, Madras on 24 January, 1962
In any case, it was contended that the question of levy of special surchage could not be the subject matter of rectification under Section 154/155 of the new Act, as this point could be decided only after prolonged investigation and after hearing the agruments of the assessed. The contention found favor with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was held that the question whether special surcharge was leviable in respect of the share income of the assessed in the various out-station firms, could be decided only after going into the particular facts of each case, as to whether or not the assessed was actively engaged in the conduct of the business of the firm. In the opinion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, this could not be said to be a mistake apparent from the records which could be rectified under Section 154/155 of the new Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Income-tax Officer V Circle Madras and another v. S. K. Habibullah, 44 Itr 809,(2) and observed that a mistake which becomes apparent only from the records of the firms is not a mistake from the records as far as the assessment of the partners is concerned. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner therefore held that in the circumstances of the case. the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to rectify this mistake under Section 154/155 of the new Act. The other ground taken up by the assessed in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was against the imposition of penal interest under Section 18A(6) of the old Act. Penal interest was levied as there was short-fall in the advance amount actually paid by the assessed under Section 18A(2) compared to what the assessed was required to pay under Section 18A(1) of the old Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the opinion that extra penal interest was leviable as the assessed income increased after rectification order under Section 154 of the new Act was passed but the levy of extra penal interest under Section 154/155 was illegal because the assessed was not given any specific notice on this point in any of the notices issued to him. He therefore held that the levy of extra penal interest under S. 154/155 was illegal. The order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 154/155 of the new Act was therefore concelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.