- (1.) THIS case relates to three asst. yrs. 1972 -73, 1973 -74 and 1974 - 75. The office is, therefore, directed to register three cases separately for the above -mentioned three assessment years as Case Nos. 7 of 1978, 7A of 1978 and 7B of 1978, respectively.
(2.) THE Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court : " 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of S. 220(1) of the IT Act, 1961, were inoperative in the case of a company which was in liquidation by the orders of the winding -up Court ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under S. 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961, was not chargeable in the case of the assessee -company ? "
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the " assessee -company ", went into liquidation and the management of the company came under the control of the official liquidator attached to the Rajasthan High Court. For the assessment years in question, regular assessments were completed and thereafter the ITO charged interest under s. 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as " the Act ", as the demands remained unpaid after the expiry of the time stipulated under S. 220(1) of the Act. The official liquidator moved applications to the ITO under S. 154, as according to him, interest under S. 220(2) of the Act was not chargeable in the case of the company which had gone into liquidation by the orders of this Court. The official liquidator claimed that S. 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, r/w r. 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, prohibited the charging of interest under S. 220(2) of the Act, after the date of the winding -up order. The ITO did not agree with the contention of the assessee - company and held that r. 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules was not a bar to the charging of interest under S. 220(2) of the Act. The ITO further held that S. 446(1) of the Companies Act was not applicable as charging of interest under the said section was not a measure for recovery of tax demand and thus it was not a legal proceeding for which leave of the Court was necessary. The official liquidator, on behalf of the assessee -company, filed an appeal before the AAC. An additional plea was also taken that S. 220(1) of the Act was inoperative in the case of a company which was in liquidation by the orders of, the winding -up Court. The AAC repelled the assessee's contention and upheld the order of the ITO.;