Case Law Details

Case Name : Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12002/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/07/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (888)

Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supreme Court of India)- On submission of counsel that assessee intend to make application before CBDT, the SC permitted assessee to make  a representation to the CBDT, within fifteen days under s 119(2) either for the waiver of interest or to condone the delay in filing the rectification application under s 154 on account of a mistake, the interest income was offered to tax and the tax was also paid on it.

Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd v JCIT

Supreme Court of India

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12002/2011

Decided on: 11 July 2011

 Judgement

Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, states that, in view of the directions given in the impugned judgement by the High Court, the assessee would like to move C.B.D.T. under section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the assessee contends that, on account of mistake in offering to tax the interest income and on the assessee paying tax on such income, interest should not be levied.

2. In our view, this is a fit case for C.B.D.T. to consider. Hence, we dispose of this special leave petition by giving two weeks’ time to the assessee to make representation to C.B.D.T. under section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 either for waiver of interest or to condone the delay in filing rectification application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We express no opinion on merits.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25033)
Type : Judiciary (9891)

0 responses to “When assessee mistakenly offers to tax interest income and also pays tax on such income, assessee should make rectification and /or waiver petition”

  1. M. Lakshmanan says:

    It is not understood how this case has gone up to supreme court. When an income is offered erroneously how int. can be demanded while the income itself can not be taxed. If an order is passed erroneously and extra refund is granted with interest, the Department will definitely collect back not only the excess refund but also the interest. The same analogy applies to this case also!

  2. ashok bagga says:

    If it implies to the interest earned from the funds recieved on account of retirement from bank.

  3. vswami says:

    From the naration it is one’s reasonable inference that, before reaching the SC, there must have been a clear finding of fact, given by the lower authorities, including at the ITAT, to the effect that the assessee had committed a gross mistake in overstating lawfully chargeable income and overpaying tax.If that be so,is it not a fit case for the AO, or in appeal, for vhaving rectified the apparent mistake, by condoning the delay?Is it not within the inherent discretion of AO, or the others to have done so do so, to meet the ends of thye socalled – ‘natural justice’. Now. in view what ther SC has said, it is likely that, it may give rise to another round/spate of litigation, in the event ‘lady-luck’ decides to bless it with a favourable smile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *