IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
H.G. Balakrishna, J.
K.L. Narayana —Appellant
Vs.
Income Tax Officer and another —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 355 of 1989
Decided on : 23-01-1989
Interest - Jurisdiction to Enhance Interest in Reassessment Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether the first respondent had jurisdiction to enhance the interest in reassessment proceedings and whether he had jurisdiction to levy such enhanced interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision in Charles D'souza Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, (1984) 147 ITR 694 KAR, held that interest can only be levied in cases of regular assessment as defined by Section 2(40) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessments under Section 143/144 fall under a distinct category of assessments, and assessments made under Section 147 are not covered by the expression 'regular assessment' as defined in Section 2(40). Therefore, interest under sections 139(8) and 217 cannot be levied in the case of an assessment or reassessment made under Section 147.
Issues: Jurisdiction to enhance interest in reassessment proceedings and levy enhanced interest
Ratio Decidendi: The decision in Charles D'souza case clarified that interest can only be levied in cases of regular assessment as defined by Section 2(40) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and assessments made under Section 147 are not covered by the expression 'regular assessment'.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and orders in annexures A, B, and D were quashed to the extent they purport to charge and recover interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act.
H.G. Balakrishna, J.—By consent of both counsel, this writ petition was taken up for hearing and arguments were heard and disposed of.
2. The short point for consideration is whether the first respondent has jurisdiction to enhance the interest in reassessment proceedings and whether he has jurisdiction to levy such enhanced interest.
3. The question is answered by the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition in Charles D'souza Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, (1984) 147 ITR 694 KAR . It was held thus (headnote) :
"There can be levy of interest only in cases of regular assessment as defined by Section 2(40) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The expression 'regular assessment' as defined by Section 2(40) means assessment made under Section 143 or Section 144 in contradistinction to assessments under Section 140A, a provisional assessment before its abolition in 1971 and an assessment/reassessment under Section 147.
When the expression 'regular assessment' is defined to mean only assessments made under certain sections of the Act, it would be beyond the jurisdiction of any court to give it a wider and comprehensive meaning so as to include all assessments done under the Act, whether under Section 143/144 or completed after issue of notice under Section 148.
Assessments under Section 143/144 fall under a distinct category of assessments and the assessments made under Section 147 are not covered by the expression ' regular assessment' as defined in Section 2(40).
Therefore, interest under sections 139(8) and 217 cannot be levied in the case of an assessment or reassessment made under Section 147."
4. The ratio of the said decision is applicable to the facts of this case. I, therefore, pass the following order.
5. The writ petition is allowed and orders in annexures A, B and D are hereby quashed to the extent they purport to charge and recover interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.