KANGRA BAJRI CO Vs. A C I T
LAWS(IT)-2002-11-23
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 26,2002

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Joginder Pall, A.M. - (1.) THIS bunch of 14 appeals has been filed by two different assessees against the two consolidated orders (both dated 5.3.93) of the CIT(A), Shimla for the assessment years as shown in the caption. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
(2.) In these appeals, following identical grounds have been taken with the only difference that up to assessment year 88-89, the assessees have disputed the charging of interest under Sections 1.39(8) and 215/217 and for the assessment year 89-90 onwards, the assessees have disputed charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both the questions of law and facts in confirming the order of the Asstt. Commr. Of Income-tax in charging interest Under Section 139(8) and 215/217 by passing order Under Section 154/155 after considering it to be a mistake apparent from records. 2. That the action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while confirming the order Under Section 154/155 is unwarranted and against the provisions of law. While passing the order, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not considered the following facts - i) That there is no mistake apparent from records ii) That where there is controversial issue and two different opinions arc involved, no mistake can be rectified Under Section 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) That the intt. charged Under Section 154/155 is against the provisions of law. That no interest Under Section 139(8) and 215/217 can be charged in re/assessment proceedings. The interest can only be charged in regular assessment proceedings. The interest can only be charged in regular assessment proceedings. Regular assessment has been defined in Section 2(4) and 215(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
(3.) THAT the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not passed a speaking order, which is illegal and against the natural justice.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.