JIWANMAL HOSPITAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. By this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the assessment orders passed by the ITO in respect of assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, in so far as the petitioner is made liable for payment of interest under Clause (iii)(a) of the proviso to Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(2.) THE sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the aforesaid provision in so far as it requires a registered firm to pay interest on the amount of tax which would have been payable if the firm had been assessed as an unregistered firm, is discriminatory and offends art. 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel, in support of this submission, relies upon the case of M. Nagappa v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 32 (Kar). This case no doubt supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but with respect we are unable to accept the view taken in it.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a registered firm is a separate legal entity for assessment purposes, and that it should be treated like any other assessee. It is also argued that there was absolutely no justification for making the impugned provision, for payment of interest in the case of a registered firm on the amount of tax which would have been payable if the firm had been assessed as an unregistered firm, and in the case of other assessees on the amount of tax payable by them.