AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.:
Petitioner is an assessee of Income Tax under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, Dy. CIT (Asst.), Calicut.
Petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income Tax, Madras for settlement of their Income Tax cases for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 2nd respondent passed Ext. P2 order. As per Ext. P2 order, consequential orders are directed to be passed by the 3rd respondent regarding interest. In para. 11 of Ext. P2, it is seen that interest u/s 139(8) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) wherever leviable will be levied according to law and interest u/s 215/217 of the Act will be levied from the due date for a period of six months from the date of filing the returns of income. Consequent to Ext. P2, the third respondent passed Ext. P3 order assessing interest under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. Petitioner who is aggrieved filed Ext. P5 representation before the 2nd respondent in which he sought for modification regarding interest levied which was rejected as per Ext. P6, Ext. P6 is under challenge.
Counsel for the petitioner attempted to impress upon this Court that Ext. P3 order is bad inasmuch as there is overlapping of the period for which interest is ordered to be paid u/s 139(8) and s. 215/217 of the Act. He also finds fault with the 2nd respondent for treating Ext. P5 petition as an application for review. On the other hand, it should have been treated as an application for correction of Ext. P2 order, contends the counsel.
Interest is payable u/s 139(8) for delay in filing the return, and interest u/s 215 is payable for delay in payment of advance tax. The sections deal with entirely different fact situation. The interest levied in respect of two different lapses is permissible under law. Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice that the discretion vested in the third respondent has been exercised by him as could be seen from Ext. P3. He points out that interest was payable from lst April, 1988, till 25th Oct 1992, the date on which Ext, P2 was passed. But interest u/s 215 of the Act is claimed only upto 31st Jan., 1990. Thus, it is contended that substantial benefit has been given to the petitioner.
Though there is no power for the 2nd respondent to review its own orders, the application was considered on merits also. In the circumstances, I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent for not treating the application as one for correction of the mistake crept in Ext. P2 order.
In view of what is stated above, the Original Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.