NEW WOODLANDS HOTEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the conjoint effect of S.237 to 240,241 and 244 of the Income Tax Act, there has been a conflict of judicial opinion. On the one side is the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. C.I.T., (1974) 94 I.T.R. 187 and the Bombay High Court which followed it in C.I. T. v. S.C. Shah, (1982) 137 I.T.R. 287. On the other, is the decision of a learned judge of this Court reported in New Woodlands v. C.I.T. 1982 KLT 212 . It is that decision which has been challenged in appeal before us.

(2.) The facts of the case are not tedious nor complicated. The assessee was subjected to assessments for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 by Exts. P1 to P3 orders, the first two on 16-3-1972 and the last one on 19-3-1973. The tax demanded for the respective years was Rs. 19,594/-, Rs. 38,702/- and Rs. 58,838/-. Appeals were filed against the assessment orders. The appeals for the first two years were disposed of by the appellate order Ext. P4 dated 15-9-1972 and that of the year 1970-71 by the order Ext. P5 dated 24-10-1973. It is sufficient to notice at this juncture that under the above orders, the assessments had been cancelled. A re-assessment was directed.

(3.) In due course, that exercise was undertaken and completed by the assessing authority. Exts. P6 to P8 evidence the resultant assessment orders for the three years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The proceedings resulted in a refund of Rs. 7.004/-, Rs. 12,2227-and Rs. 75,5477- for the three years in question. There was a consequential direction for refund of the interest and penalty already levied. The assessee claimed interest for the entirety of the period subsequent to the disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Assistant commissioner. The order of the Income Tax Officer, Ext. P9 dated 30-11-1977, declined that request. The revisional jurisdiction of the Income Tax Commissioner was invoked by petitions, Ext. P10 to P12. The revisions were ultimately disposed of by the Commissioner under Ext. P15 order dated 27-1-1978, which upheld the order Ext. P9 passed by the Income Tax Officer.