JUDGEMENT
Egbert Singh, Accountant Member -
(1.)THE second and third grounds of appeal by the assessee are not pressed by the assessee's learned counsel at the time of hearing. Hence, these are not considered.
(2.)The point left for our consideration is that the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in not considering all the facts of the case and also the written submission made before him and that the C.I.T. (Appeals) should have considered the order passed by the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals) dated 28-7-83 whereby payment of Rs. 8700 was directed by the then C.I.T. (Appeals) to be considered as advance tax.
The facts of the case was that the assessment was completed earlier by the I.A.C. (Assessment). The assessee moved the Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong under Section 264. Copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 dated 31-1-81 has not been placed before us. It appears that the Commissioner of Income-tax held the view that the payment of Rs. 8700 should not be treated as advance tax. That order apparently was not made available to the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals), who vide his order dated 28-7-83 entertained the additional ground made by the assessee before him, contending that the I.A.C. (Assessment) erred in holding that the payment of advance tax of Rs. 8700 on 31-3-1977 was not payment of advance tax. The then C.I.T. (Appeals) held that this controversy was settled and the payments made during the financial year though not on the dates specified under Section 211 should be treated as payment of advance tax. He, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to treat this amount as payment of advance tax and to allow interest under Section 214. It is not clear and it has not been shown before us whether the order of the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals) dated 28-7-83 was final or otherwise.
(3.)THE Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the predecessor C.I.T. (Appeals) in respect of other reliefs allowed in quantum. As far as payment of Rs. 8700 made on 31-3-77 was concerned, the Assessing Officer mentioned that the same was not treated as advance tax by the Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong under a revision order under Section 264 dated 31-1-81. Hence, interest under Section 214 was not allowed. Against the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 251, the assessee preferred an appeal before the present C.I.T. (Appeals), who noted that the grievance of the assessee was against the non-allowance of interest under Section 214. THE C.I.T. (Appeals) noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax, N.E. Region, Shillong, vide his order under Section 264 has held that the above payment should not be treated as advance tax. THErefore, the present C.I.T. (Appeals) observed that since the matter has been decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264, the present C.I.T. (Appeals) refrained from entertaining this ground of appeal by the assessee. Hence, this appeal before us.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.