JAYAKUMARI Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

(2.) H. H. Jayalluman of Wadhawan, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No. 1, Cunningham Road, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Bangalore. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_273_ITR191_1991Html2.htm</FRM>

(3.) IN opposition to this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that section 57 of the Act takes care of a situation in relation to provisional assessment. Where, therefore, the provisional assessment was made on January 6, 1968, at Rs. 6,67,615 and if the accountable person prayed for instalments and thereby postponed payment of this duty, it is open to the assessing authority to demand interest not exceeding 4% by virtue of the powers conferred on him under section 70(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that both the sub-sections, namely, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 70 of the Act, operate in different fields, and, therefore, the levy is perfectly valid. The ruling in Bettiah Estate v. Union of INdia [1977] 108 ITR 210 (Patna) was a case relating to rectification under section 61 of the Act. There, the question arose whether after rectification of the assessment, interest could be demanded under section 70(2) of the Act. The court answered the question in the negative. That case has no application.