Skip to content


Mewa Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 81 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1979]117ITR598(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139(1) and 139(8)
AppellantMewa Lal
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateKameshwar Prasad, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....undisclosed sources was liable to be fixed at rs. 10,000. in regard to the levy of interest, the tribunal held that this part of the assessment order was not appealable in view of a decision of this court in vidyapat singhania v. cit : [1977]107itr533(all) .2. at the instance of the assessee, the tribunal has referred for our opinion the question whether the tribunal was justified in holding that levy of interest under section 139(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, was not appealable.3. the decision in vidyapat singhania's case : [1977]107itr533(all) is directly in point. it was held there that no appeal lies against an order levying interest because there is no provision under the act for such an appeal. in fact, clause (b) of sub-section (8) of section 139 specifically provides for refund of.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed his return beyond time. The ITO assessed his income at Rs. 31,500. He also levied interest under Section 139(1) for filing the return beyond time. The AAC confirmed this order. Before the AAC, no arguments were advanced against the levy of interest. The assessee went up to the Tribunal which held that the income from undisclosed sources was liable to be fixed at Rs. 10,000. In regard to the levy of interest, the Tribunal held that this part of the assessment order was not appealable in view of a decision of this court in Vidyapat Singhania v. CIT : [1977]107ITR533(All) .

2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that levy of interest under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not appealable.

3. The decision in Vidyapat Singhania's case : [1977]107ITR533(All) is directly in point. It was held there that no appeal lies against an order levying interest because there is no provision under the Act for such an appeal. In fact, Clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 139 specifically provides for refund of amount of interest where the amount of tax on which interest was payable had been reduced in appeal. It is, therefore, not right for the learnedcounsel for the assessee to suggest that if an order levying interest is not appealable, the assessee would be without a remedy.

4. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //