Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prabhat Krishna Rohatgi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 163 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1985]154ITR824(Cal)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 139, 154, 155, 215, 217, 220 and 246
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentPrabhat Krishna Rohatgi
Excerpt:
- .....it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from the record with regard to the charging of such interest. 4. the aac held that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the rectification was justified. he further held that the point about charging of interest was not appealable. 5. we are in agreement with the views expressed by the tribunal. the tribunal has held that the order was clearly appealable. section 246(f) is quite specific. the assessee has raised questions about the jurisdiction of the ito and also the point of limitation. those points must be decided on merits. the appeal is not against levy of interest simpliciter. 6. in that view of the matter, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 7. there will be no.....
Judgment:

Suhas Chandra Sen, J.

1. In this case, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has a right of appeal under Sub-section (f) of Section 246 of the Act from the Income-tax Officer's orders passed under Sections 155/154 of the Act levying interest under Sections 139/215/217/220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'

2. The short point in this case is whether an appeal lies to the AAC from an order of rectification passed by the ITO. It has been pointed out by the Tribunal that an appeal lies under Section 246(f) of the I.T. Act. It has been contended on behalf of the Revenue that the ITO not having charged the interest in the original assessment under Section 220 of the Act in the assessment year 1961-62, and under Sections 139 and 215 in the assessment year 1962-63, could charge them in the rectification orders as there was a mistake apparent on the record.

3. The Tribunal has recorded that the assessee sought to argue (1) that the ITO had no power to charge penal interest which had not originally been charged in the regular assessments, and (2) that it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from the record with regard to the charging of such interest.

4. The AAC held that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the rectification was justified. He further held that the point about charging of interest was not appealable.

5. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the order was clearly appealable. Section 246(f) is quite specific. The assessee has raised questions about the jurisdiction of the ITO and also the point of limitation. Those points must be decided on merits. The appeal is not against levy of interest simpliciter.

6. In that view of the matter, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

7. There will be no order as to costs.


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