SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(All) 186

SATISH CHANDRA, K. C. AGRAWAL
Mewa Lal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Kameshwar Prasad, Ashok Gupta

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. FOR the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed his return beyond time. The ITO assessed his income at Rs. 31,500. He also levied interest under Section 139(1) for filing the return beyond time. The AAC confirmed this order. Before the AAC, no arguments were advanced against the levy of interest. The assessee went up to the Tribunal which held that the income from undisclosed sources was liable to be fixed at Rs. 10,000. In regard to the levy of interest, the Tribunal held that this part of the assessment order was not appealable in view of a decision of this court in Vidyapat Singhania v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 533 (All).

2. AT the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that levy of interest under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not appealable.

The decision in Vidyapat Singhania's case [1977] 107 ITR 533 (All) is directly in point. It was held there that no appeal lies against an order levying interest because there is no provision under the Act for such an appeal. In fact, Clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 139 specifically provides for refund of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top