Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.20 seconds)Section 221 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 220 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 214 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Taxation Laws (Continuation And Validation Of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964
Income -Tax Officer Kolar And Another vs Seghu Buchiah Setty on 11 March, 1964
The counsel for department relied on the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (Act 11 of 1964). The counsel particularly relies on the section 3 of Act 11 of 1964. He contends that the original notice under section 156 of Act survives by virtue of section 3 of Act 11 of 1964. He also refereed to us to the decisions in ITO v. Buchiah Setty . In that case the Supreme Court held that as and when an assessment is challenged and the order so assessment is set aside or modified by the appellate authority, and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the assessment order are also rendered ineffective. So a notice issued under section 156 Act pursuant to an assessment order which was set aside subsequently by the appellate authority would not remain in force and the Department has to be proceed afresh by issuing a fresh demand notice under section 156 Act. This decision cause great difficulty for the Revenue and in order to tide over the difficulty, the said act, namely, the Taxation Law (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 was passed. Section 3 of the said Act provided that if the assessment order is set a side or modified by the appellate authority and, subsequently, the original order is restored by second appellate authority, the action taken pursuant to the first order including the demand notice will survive and a fresh demand notice is unnecessary. Basing on this provision, counsel developed this argument by urging that so long has no fresh demand notice is required under law, the assessee is liable to pay interest on the bases of original notice of demand. It is difficult to accept this contention. Perhaps, no fresh demand notice may be necessary and the original notice under section 156 of the Act may be revived. Even if we accept that the original notice is revived it has no consequences. The assessee has paid the amount demanded as per the original notice. In a case where assessee has paid the demand made in the original notice, there is no liability on the part of assessee to pay interest. So even if we take it that the original notice is revived, the Department may not be justified in demanding the interest from the date of the original notice. The non-compliance with the original notice is the event which attracts the payment of interest. In this case, there is no non-compliance with the original notice and so the assessee is not liable to pay interest."