High Court Of Rajasthan
CIT vs. Ghewar Chand Soni
Sections 139(8), 260A
Asst. Year 1988-89
Rajesh Balia & K.K. Acharya, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 16 of 2002
24th May, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Appellant
ORDER
BY THE COURT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal relates to asst. yr. 1988-89. The only question sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that since the amendment made in s. 139(8) where any regular assessment is made for the first time, whether under s. 143 or under s. 147 of the IT Act for the purpose of levy of interest, it is still governed by provision of s. 139(8). The Supreme Court has laid down in Modi Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Anr. (1995) 128 CTR (SC) 361 : (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC) : TC S4.369 that ‘the “Regular assessment” has been defined in s. 2(40) to mean the assessment made under ss. 143 or 144. In the context of ss. 140A, 141 and 141A “regular assessment” could only mean the original assessment made under s. 143 or 144. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and use of the phrase “regular assessment” in various sections of the Act. In s. 214 “regular assessment” has been used in no other sense than the first order of assessment passed under ss. 143 to 144. If any consequential order has to be passed by the ITO to give effect to an order passed by the higher authority, that consequential order cannot be treated as ‘regular assessment” nor can the date of the consequential order be treated as the date of the regular assessment.’
By way of amendment under s. 139(8) where no regular assessment has been made under s. 143 or 144 in the first instance, the assessment under s. 147 is also to be treated as regular assessment. However, in the present case from the finding of the Tribunal, it is apparent that original assessment for the asst. yr. 1988-89, was made on 2nd Dec., 1986, and thereafter reassessment was made by resorting to s. 148. No interest was levied in the course of original assessment. The interest has been sought to be levied by way of reassessment under s. 147. Apparently, the contention raised by the Revenue is ill-founded on facts. In view of the meaning of “regular assessment” which has already been determined by Supreme Court and the provisions of s. 139(8) have also made it clear that reassessment under s. 147/148 is deemed to be a regular assessment only in such cases where assessment under s. 143 and 144 is not made in the first instance. Apparently on facts present case does not fall within the ambit of deeming provision. In such view of the matter it cannot be said that any substantial question of law is involved for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 263 ITR 650]
