1998 PLP 3097 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus UDHOJI SHRIKISHANDAS
| Citation | 1998 PLP 3097 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 222 I T R 736 |
| Bench Members | U.L. Bhat, CJ and M.V. Tamaskar, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus UDHOJI SHRIKISHANDAS |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 3097 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 3097 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 222 I T R 736 bench comprising: U.L. Bhat, CJ and M.V. Tamaskar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 3097 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus UDHOJI SHRIKISHANDAS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Interest on refund'--Assessee seeking interest quoting wrong provision of law
Not a good reason to refuse relief if otherwise assessee is entitled to it
No question of law arises
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.214, 244 & 256(2). Refund of a part of advance tax paid by the assessee was allowed by both the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority but interest on the refunded amount was not paid. The assessee filed two applications for two assessment years for granting interest under section 244(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer rejected the applications on the ground that the provision quoted was not applicable, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on appeal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for interest under sections 214 and 244 of the Act. The department filed an appeal to the Tribunal, which was dismissed. On an application under section 256(2) of the Act by the Revenue: Held, that the fact that the assessee had quoted a wrong provision of law could not be a good reason to deny relief if otherwise the assessee was entitled to it. No question of law arose.
Judgment & Decree
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jabalpur, has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have heard both sides. The dispute arises in relation to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, The assessee who paid advance tax was allowed refund of a part of the tax paid, by the Assessing Officer and another part by the appellate authority. Interest on the amount of refund was not directed to be paid. The assessee filed separate applications in relation to two assessment years for granting interest under section 244(1-A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the applications on the ground that the provision quoted was not applicable. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The claim under section 244(1-A) of the Act was not pressed before the appellate authority, who however, directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for interest under sections 214 and 244 of the Act. The Department filed an appeal against this order before the Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed. An application seeking reference about the question involved in this controversy was also rejected. Hence, this application. The only contention of the applicant is that the assessee having claimed relief under section 244(1-A) of the Act, the appellate authority should not have directed consideration of the claim under sections 214 and 244 of the Act. The fact that the assessee quoted the wrong provision of law could not be a good reason to deny relief if otherwise, he is entitled to it. We find no question of law arising in this case. The application is dismissed. M.B.A./1585/FC Application dismissed.