Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

N.V. Balasubramanian J.

At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration for the assessment year 1978-

79 :

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to interest u/s 214 on the

refunded amount of Rs. 2,38,503 ?

Whether the Tribunal is right in observing that the denial of interest u/s 214 is not appealable ?

The issue raised in the first question is whether the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the refunded amount

of Rs. 2,38,503. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to such interest on the ground that the assessee had paid the advance tax

without any notice from the Income Tax Department and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act. A similar question

of law whether the assessee is entitled to claim interest u/s 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid without any notice by the Income Tax

Department came up for consideration in Ganapathy Engineering Manufacturers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, wherein this court held that the assessee would

be entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid, though the amount was paid by the assessee without any notice from the Income

Tax Department. We, therefore, hold that the assessee would be entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act on the advance tax paid though it was paid

without any notice from the Income Tax Officer, provided the advance tax was paid before the expiry of the financial year. We hold that the

Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the first question of

law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

The second question relates to the maintainability of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee was not originally granted interest u/s 214 of the

Act by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee made a request to the Income Tax Officer to rectify the mistake u/s 154(2)(b) of the Act. The

Income Tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act. In other words, he refused to rectify the order of

assessment. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Officer refusing to rectify the mistake. The Appellate Assistant

Commissioner held that the assessee would be entitled to interest u/s 214 of the Act and there was a mistake apparent in the order f the Income

Tax Officer and directed the Income Tax Officer to look into the matter and grant interest on the advance tax paid. The Tribunal, however, took a

view that the assessee was not entitled to maintain an appeal against the order refusing to rectify the mistake. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that

the order passed by the Income Tax Officer was one u/s 154 of the Act and against such an order, an appeal would lie to the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee, in the instant case, has not preferred any appeal against an order u/s 214 of the Act, and possibly he could

not do so, as there was no order u/s 214 of the Act, but the assessee preferred an appeal against an order passed u/s 154 of the Act refusing to

rectify a mistake and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in our view, rightly entertained the appeal and held that the assessee was entitled

to interest. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the assessee was perfectly maintainable.

Recently, a Bench of this court (in which one of us was a party) in Tax Case No. 448 of 1983, by judgment dated November 26. 1997 (

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., ), held that in similar circumstances the appeal would lie against an order

refusing to rectify the mistake. Following the said judgment, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled

to maintain an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Officer refusing to rectify the mistake found in the order of assessment. Accordingly, we

answer the second question of law referred to us also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000.