Malik, C.J.Mr. Das on behalf of the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection and has pointed out that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer was u/s 18-A (6), Income Tax Act, The assessee having paid in advance less than eighty per cent, of the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment he was made liable to pay simple interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 30 (1), Income Tax Act and has pointed out that the order u/s 18-A (6) was not appealable. An appeal was however, riled by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but no objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the merits. Then there was a further appeal filed u/s 33 (1) before the Appellate Tribunal which also dismissed the appeal on the merits. Learned counsel has pointed out that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal been completely without jurisdiction, the order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be deemed to be an order u/s 33. In case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, in the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction, had varied that order to the disadvantage of the assessee, it may have been possible to ask for a reference for the decision of the question whether they had any jurisdiction to do so; but, they having merely dismissed the appeals, the effect of the order of the Income Tax Officer remained and, as there was no appeal provided for against that order, the order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be treated as an order u/s 33 against which a reference is provided for u/s 66. This reference cannot be entertained and is rejected.
2. We make no order as to costs.
Deo Sharma v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
Deo Sharma v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
Misc. Case No. 202 of 1950 | 09-01-1953
Advocate List
- For Petitioner : Brijlal Gupta,
- For Respondent : ; S.C. Dass,
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE MALIK, C.J.
- HON'BLE JUSTICE V. BHARGAVA, J
Eq Citations
- [1953] 23 ITR 226 (ALL)
- AIR 1953 ALL 482
- LQ/AllHC/1953/13
Head Note
Income Tax — Reference — Appeal — Appeal against order of Income Tax Officer under S. 18-A(6) IT Act — Maintainability of — Held, order passed by Income Tax Officer was under S. 18-A(6) IT Act, assessee having paid in advance less than 80% of tax determined on basis of regular assessment, he was made liable to pay simple interest at rate of 6% p.a. — Order under S. 18-A(6) was not appealable — An appeal was however, filed by assessee before Appellate Assistant Commissioner but no objection was raised to maintainability of appeal and Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed appeal on merits — Then there was a further appeal filed under S. 33(1) before Appellate Tribunal which also dismissed appeal on merits — Held, order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal being completely without jurisdiction, order of Appellate Tribunal cannot be deemed to be an order under S. 33 — In case Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Appellate Tribunal, in wrongful assumption of jurisdiction, had varied that order to disadvantage of assessee, it may have been possible to ask for reference for decision of question whether they had any jurisdiction to do so; but, they having merely dismissed appeals, effect of order of Income Tax Officer remained and, as there was no appeal provided for against that order, order of Appellate Tribunal cannot be treated as an order under S. 33 against which a reference is provided for under S. 66 — Reference cannot be entertained and is rejected — Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 18-A(6), 30(1) and 66
