SEASON RUBBER LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business of manufacture of centrifuged latex. The assessment of the appellant under the IT Act for the year 1986-87 was originally completed on 15th March, 1989, in which the AO levied a sum of Rs. 16,615 as interest under S. 139(8) and a sum of Rs. 1,32,309 as interest under S. 215 of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant took up the assessment order in appeal before the CIT(A), who granted relief to the appellant. The AO gave effect to the appellate order in which interest under S. 139(8) Rs. 8,805 and interest under S. 215 Rs. 63,813 were levied. The appellant filed a petition for waiver of the interest levied under S. 139(8) and also under S. 215 of the Act before the CIT under s. 264 of the Act. The CIT, as per order dt. 22nd July, 1994, waived the interest levied under s. 139(8), but declined to grant waiver of the interest levied under S. 215. Regarding the levy of interest under S. 215 of the Act, the CIT observed as follows :

(2.) SHRI John Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the assessee had filed a revision under S. 264 of the IT Act for waiver of the interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 215 of the Act, the CIT had considered only the waiver of interest under S. 139(8) and left open the Page 2 of 4CTR 27/12/2010file://C:\PROGRAM FILES\html\matter3.htm matter in regard to the levy of interest under S. 215 for consideration by the AO. The counsel further submits that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no appeal will lie against the levy of interest under S. 215 made by the assessing authority. He, in support of the above, relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. H.H. Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb (1978) 115 ITR 301 (Kar) and of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Lalit Prasad Rohini Kumar (1979) 117 ITR 603 (Cal) and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 112 : (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC). On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, he submits that the Tribunal had acted illegally in setting aside the order of the CIT(A).

(3.) THE decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts relied on by the counsel for the assessee have no relevance on the facts of the case on hand. The appellant had applied before the CIT for waiver/reduction of the interest levied under S. 215 which was declined. In the above circumstances, there is no question of filing any appeal against the order giving effect to the directions issued by the CIT in the revision order for the very same relief. The CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly Page 3 of 4CTR 27/12/2010file://C:\PROGRAM FILES\html\matter3.htm dismissed.