Pathak, J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court at its Nagpur Bench dismissing two writ petitions filed by the appellant.
(2.) The appellant is a sterling company which exports manganese extracted from its manganese mines situated in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. It held these manganese mines up to June 30, 1962. On June 8, 1962 it entered into an agreement with the Government of India under which all the manganese mines except one were transferred to a new company, the Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur in which the Central Government, the Governments of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and the appellant had shares.
(3.) The appellant was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant previous year being the year ended December 31, 1966. Interest under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 56,391/- and interest under Sec. 215 of that Act amounting to Rs.9,42,336/-, subsequently reduced to Rs. 5,07,880/- were levied against the appellant. According to the appellant there was ample and clear justification for the delay in furnishing the return under Sec. 139 and for the payment of advance tax under Sec. 212 at a figure less than 75 per cent of the assessed tax. On March 22,1971 the appellant preferred an appeal under cl. (c) of S. 246 of the Act before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur raising objection to the total income assessed and also including grounds objecting to the interest charged under Ss. 139 and 215 of the Act. On being advised thereafter that the grounds objecting to the charge of interest were infructuous inasmuch as orders under Ss. 139 and 215 of the Act were not appealable, the appellant filed two revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax under S. 264 of the Act, one objecting to the levy of interest under sub-s. (8) of S. 139 and the other to the interest levied under S. 215. In the two revision petitions the appellant explained the circumstances accounting for the delay in filing the return and in underestimating the advance tax. It was mentioned in the revision petitions that an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and that notwithstanding its pendency the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax was being invoked. The Commissioner informed the appellant that by reason of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of S. 264 of the Act, which specifically directs that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under S. 264 where that order is pending on an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he was powerless to interfere so long as the appeal was not withdrawn. Thereafter, a few days later, the appellant made an application to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by it referring to the revision petitions preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax on the question of interest levied under S. 139 and S. 215 of the Act and requesting permission to withdraw the grounds relating to the levy of interest specially as those grounds could not be taken in the appeal and the orders levying interest were not appealable. It does not appear that any order was made specifically by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on that application, but it is apparent from the appellate order passed by him disposing of the appeal that he did not consider the grounds relating to the levy of interest. On October 15, 1971 the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissed both revision petitions. He proceeded on the view that it was not sufficient for the appellant to withdraw only those grounds raised in the appeal which related to the levy of interest, and that the appellant should have withdrawn the entire appeal pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The acceptance of the Commissioner's view would have meant that in order to maintain its revision petitions challenging the levy of interest the appellant would have been obliged to abandon also the challenge to the assessment of its income. The appellant filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court at its Nagpur Bench assailing the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting its revision petitions, and on April 24,1972 the High Court rejected the Writ Petitions in limine.;