Back
High Court Of Allahabad
SATISH CHANDRA, C.J., K.C. AGRAWAL, J.
Mewa Lal : Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income-Tax : Respondent
Income-tax Reference 81 of 1975
Decided On : Mar 22, 1978
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 amount of interest where the amount of tax on which interest was payable had been reduced in appeal. It is, therefore, not right for the learned counsel for the assessee to suggest that if an order levying interest is not appealable, the assessee would be without a remedy.
3. IN the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
