1990 PLP 666 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.
| Citation | 1990 PLP 666 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | Gokal Chand Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 666 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 666 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) bench comprising: Gokal Chand Mital and S.S. Sodhi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 666 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner.
- Bhagirath Dass, Senior Advocate and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Appeal to A.A.C.‑‑‑Delayed returns ‑‑‑Chargeability of interest under S.139(8), Indian Income‑tax Act, 1961‑‑‑Question can be agitated in appeal only if assessee questions liability to the levy at all‑‑‑Indian Income‑tax Act, 1961, Ss. 139(8) &
246. The levy of interest under section 139(8) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, is a part of the process of assessment and it is open to an assessee to dispute the levy of interest in appeal provided he limits himself to the ground that he is not liable to the levy at all. For, waiver or reduction of interest levied under section 139(8) cannot be the subject of an appeal under section 246(c) and has to be dealt with by the Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the question whether the chargeability of interest under section 139(8), Indian Income‑tax Act, 1961, could be agitated by the assessee in a quantum appeal is to be answered in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1986) 160 I T R 961(SC). (b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ Depreciation‑‑-Corrosive chemicals"‑‑‑Meaning‑‑‑Such chemical does not include non‑free chemicals of corrosive effect‑‑‑Indian Income‑tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, Part I, Para. III, Entry (ii)B(7). C.I.T. v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (1982) 136 I T R 758 (P & H) fol. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate and Ajay Mittal for the Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass, Senior Advocate and Ramesh Kumar for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
S.S. SODHI, J.‑‑The assessee, Sarashwati Industrial Syndicate Limited, is a limited company and its business is manufacture of machinery for sugar mills and cement factories and to execute casting fabrication and other jobs for such industrial concerns, besides manufacture of sugar. The matters raised here pertain to the assessment year 1974‑75. The two questions to be answered by this Court are: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal as right in law in holding that the words corrosive chemicals employed n entry (ii) B(7) of Para. III of Part I of Appendix I to the Income‑tax Rules, 1962, contemplated not only free chemicals but also non‑free chemicals of corrosive effect? (2) Whether the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee could agitate in its quantum appeal the question of chargeability of interest under section 139(8) of the Act?" The first question has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, following the earlier judgment of this Court in C.I.T. v. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 758, where this precise question arose with regard to this very assessee. Turning to the second question regarding interest, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1986). 160 ITR 961, where it was held that the levy of interest was a part of the process of assessment and it was open, therefore, to an assessee to dispute the levy of interest in appeal, provided he limited himself to the ground that he is not liable to the levy at all, but if the assessee does not dispute the amount of advance tax determined as payable by the Income‑tax Officer, he cannot object merely to the levy of penal interest or question its quantum. It was accordingly observed, at p. 967: "We hold that the question whether a case is made out for waiver or reduction of the interest levied under subsection (8) of section 139 or under section 215 cannot be the subject of an appeal under clause (c) of section 246 of the Income‑tax Act. That is a matter which can more appropriately be dealt with by the Commissioner of Income‑tax in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction." The second question has thus to be answered in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd.'s case (1986) 160 ITR 961. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Z.S./742/T Reference answered accordingly.