S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under s. 139(8)/215 of the Act levied in the original assessment does not survive when a reassessment is done under s. 148 of the Act particularly in view of the apex Court’s decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : TC 51R.314 ?

Supreme Court Of India

Khodey Brewing & Distilling Industries Ltd. vs. CIT

Sections 139(8), 215, 256

Asst. Year 1981-82

B.N. Kirpal & Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2000

12th October, 2000

Counsel Appeared

Joseph Vellapally with Dhruv Mehta, Ashok K. Kulkarni, S.K. Mehta & Ms. Shobha, for the Appellant : Mukul Rohtagi with Ranbir Chandra & S.K. Dwivedi, for the Respondent

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

Special leave granted.

2. The Tribunal had stated the case and referred the following question of law to the High Court : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under s. 139(8)/215 of the Act levied in the original assessment does not survive when a reassessment is done under s. 148 of the Act particularly in view of the apex Court’s decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 209 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : TC 51R.314 ?”

3. A perusal of the judgment does not show that the High Court has answered the said question of law. The High Court appears to have proceeded with the case as if it was sitting in appeal and exercising the appellate jurisdiction rather than hearing a reference.

4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court should rehear the reference and answer the question of law referred to it with or without reframing the same. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court with the aforesaid direction.

[Citation : 250 ITR 659]

Malcare WordPress Security