1998 PLP 2334 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KAMLAPAT MOTI LAL
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2334 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 222 I T R 9 |
| Bench Members | M. Katju and Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KAMLAPAT MOTI LAL |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2334 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2334 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 222 I T R 9 bench comprising: M. Katju and Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2334 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KAMLAPAT MOTI LAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Cannot be levied in case of reassessment under 5.148
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.139(8) &
148. Held, that interest under section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied in reassessment proceedings under section
148. Charles D'Souza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar.) and CIT v. Kapoor Chand Ram Chand (1995) 216 318 (Raj.) fol.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that interest under section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied in reassessment proceedings under section
148. Charles D'Souza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694 (Kar.) and CIT v. Kapoor Chand Ram Chand (1995) 216 318 (Raj.) fol. This is an income-tax reference under section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which the following two questions have been referred for our opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of section 139(8) of the act have no application to reassessment proceedings? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct that the matter was highly debatable and that the provisions of section 154 of the Act could not be invoked for levying interest under section 139(8) of the Act?" The facts of this case are that original return was submitted by the assessee on September 7, 1968, and the original assessment order for the assessment year 1968-69 was passed on December 31, 1971. The assessment was subsequently reopened under section 148 and a fresh assessment order was passed on December 30, 1972. In this order dated December 30, 1972, there was no order of paying interest under section 139(8) and hence notice under section 154 was served on the assessee and ultimately it was held that interest under section 139(8) should also be charged. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the Income Tax Officer's order and the Department's appeal to the Tribunal failed. Hence, this reference. The short question before us is whether interest under section 139(8) can be charged in proceedings under section 148 for reassessment. This point is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Charles D'Souza v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 694, as well as a decision of the Rajasthan High Court-Jaipur Bench in the case of CIT v. Kapoor Chand Ram Chand (1995) 216 ITR
318. These decisions have referred to earlier decisions also, which show that a consistent view has been taken on this point by the various High Courts holding that interest under section 139(8) cannot be levied in a case of assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Following these decisions, we answer the first question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The second question becomes academic, and hence it need not be answered. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1504/FC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.