Rajasthan H.C : Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that for charging of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 of IT Act, 1961, a direction to this effect in the assessment order itself was necessary particularly when the ITO under his own signatures in the assessment form of even date has charged the interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench

CIT vs. Autolite (India) (P) Ltd.

Sections 139(8), 217

Y.R. Meena & A.C. Goyal, JJ.

IT Ref. Appln. No. 92 of 1985

7th February, 2002

Counsel Appeared

J.K. Singhi with Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the Applicant : R.B. Mathur, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

On an application filed under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :

“Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that for charging of interest under ss. 139(8) and 217 of IT Act, 1961, a direction to this effect in the assessment order itself was necessary particularly when the ITO under his own signatures in the assessment form of even date has charged the interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act?”

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Mathur submits that this issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Singh (1998) 229 ITR 310 (Raj) as well as by the decision of Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 : (2001)

247 ITR 209 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), the appeal was filed against the decision of High Court wherein the High Court has taken the view that when the AO in the assessment order has not charged interest and when the charge of interest has not been specifically stated in the assessment order, after that the order charging the interest in demand notice is contrary to the provisions of law and AO cannot levy the interest under ss. 139 and 217 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Singh (supra). Considering the decisions relied upon by Mr. Mathur, we find no infirmity in the order of Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.

[Citation : 256 ITR 303]

Malcare WordPress Security