C.I.T.JALANDHAR vs. SHRI MANGAL SAIN HOSHIARPUR

ITR/39/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021589199004 April 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that Section 154 of the Act can only be used to rectify mistakes apparent from the record and not to correct debatable issues. The Court referred to its own judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sushma Saxena (1997) 223 ITR 395, which held that prior to the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 139(8), interest could not be charged under Section 139(8) in cases of reassessment under Section 147. Although this view was later reversed by the Supreme Court in K. Govindan and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2001) 247 ITR 192, the High Court emphasized that the fact that the issue was subject to conflicting judicial pronouncements (including its own earlier judgment and those of other High Courts) clearly indicated that the issue was not free from doubt at the relevant time. Therefore, the provisions of Section 154 could not be resorted to. The question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mangal Sain, failed to file his income tax return for assessment year 1971-72. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued, and the return was filed belatedly. The Assessing Officer initially charged interest under Section 139(8) of the Act. Upon realizing the interest was charged for a lesser period, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act and rectified the order on February 21, 1977, raising an additional demand of Rs. 21,706/-. The assessee appealed this rectification order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) held that the issue of levying interest under Section 139(8) in this scenario was debatable, thus the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed under Section 154. The revenue appealed this decision to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the period of default after the issuance of notice under Section 148, when the assessee has furnished no return suo motu under Section 139(1), is a debatable issue and therefore, the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to act under Section 154? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's success before the Tribunal implies their argument that the issue was debatable, making Section 154 proceedings impermissible. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's arguments before the High Court, but it upholds the Tribunal's finding which was in the assessee's favour. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned counsel, argued that the Tribunal was not right in law. The judgment records the revenue's argument implicitly through the referral of the question of law and the subsequent analysis by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 139(8),Section 154,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.R.

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R.

Date of decision: 4.4.2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar ...Petitioner Versus Shri Mangal Sain, Model Town, Hoshiarpur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the revenue. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, ‘the Tribunal) arising out of its order dated 26.5.1980 passed in ITA No.518(ASR)/1978-79 for the assessment year 1971-72:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that what is the period of default after the issuance of notice u/s 148, when the assessee has furnished no return suo motu u/s 139 (1) is a debatable issue and therefore, the Income-tax Officer had no juri iction to act u/s 154?” Briefly the facts, as noticed in the statement of case, are that the assessee did not file his return of income for

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →