GULATI, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE assessee, Sri Gopal Krishna Singhania, was assessed to tax for the year 1945 -46 on September 30, 1948, on a total income of Rs. 1,07,247. The assessment was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax and a fresh assessment thereafter was made on February 25, 1963, on a total income of Rs. 90,532. In this assessment the Income -tax Officer charged interest under Section 18A(6)/18A(8), although the same was not charged in the original assessment. The assessee filed an appeal against the levy of interest. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that noappeal lay against the levy of interest under Section 18A(6) and dismissed the appeal as incompetent. On second appeal, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax and dismissed the appeal. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal was rightly dismissed as being incompetent ?' The jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax has been defined in Section 30 of the Act. That section sets out the various orders which have been made appealable. An order under Section 18A(6) or Section 18A(8) does not find a place in Section 30. Therefore, no appeal lies against such an order. This court has already taken this view in the case of Pt. Deo Sharma v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [1953]23ITR226(All) and that view has been affirmed recently by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [1977]107ITR539(All) and by us in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [1977]107ITR368(All) . The learned counsel for the assessee states that the case of Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills P. Ltd. : [1977]107ITR539(All) was decided on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Keshardeo Shrinivas Morarka v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [1963]48ITR404(Bom) and that the Bombay High Court has recently taken a different view in the case of Mathura Das B. Mohta v. Commissioner of Income -tax : [1965]56ITR269(Bom) holding that an appeal lies against an order under Section 18A(6). He further says that there are certain observations of the Supreme Court which support this contention and, therefore, we should reconsider the matter.
(3.) AS has already been pointed out the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax are not plenary. He can entertain appeals only against the matters mentioned in Section 30. That section, so far as is material for our purposes, reads : '30. Any assessee objecting to the amount of income assessed under Section 23 or Section 27, or the amount of loss computed under Section 24 or the amount of tax determined under Section 23 or Section 27, or denying his liability to be assessed under this Act, or objecting to the cancellation by an Income -tax Officer of the registration of a firm under Sub -section (4) of Section 23 or to a refusal to register a firm under Sub -section (4) of Section 23 or Section 26A, or to make a fresh assessment under Section 27, or objecting to any order under Sub -section (2) of Section 25 or Section 25A or Sub -section (2) of Section 26 or Section 28 made by an Income -tax Officer, or objecting to any penalty imposed by an Income -tax Officer under Sub -section (6) of Section 44E or Sub -section (5) of Section 44F or Sub -section (1) of Section 46, or objecting to a refusal of an Income -tax Officer to allow a claim to a refundunder Section 48, 49 or 49F, or to the amount of the refund allowed by the Income -tax Officer under any of those sections, and any assessee, being a company, objecting to an order made by an Income -tax Officer under Subsection (1) of section 23A, may appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment or against such refusal or order .........' ;