1987-VIL-493-KER-DT

Equivalent Citation: [1987] 167 ITR 338, 34 TAXMANN 66

KERALA HIGH COURT

Date: 06.03.1987

MOHAMMED ESSA MOOSA SAIT

Vs

GIFT-TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER

BENCH

Judge(s)  : K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON., T. KOCHU THOMMEN 

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

T. KOCHU THOMMEN J.-The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased, Mohammed Issac Haji Moosa Sait. He challenges exhibit P-1 order in so far as it relates to a demand for payment of interest under section 32 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in the sum of Rs. 81,982 for the period from December 17, 1971, to March 31, 1979. He also challenges exhibit P-3 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax affirming exhibit P-1.

The Gift-tax Officer completed the assessment on July 27, 1968, respecting the estate of the deceased and the taxable gift was determined at Rs. 4,39,600. The gift-tax payable thereon was determined at Rs. 1,57,450. A demand notice was duly served on the assessee. The assessee was allowed to pay the amount in instalments. He paid a total sum of Rs. 65,000 in instalments. In the meantime, his appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority in part by reducing the gift-tax to Rs. 15,982. As a result of this reduction, a sum of Rs. 48,580 became refundable to the assessee. The refund was, however, withheld by the order of the Commissioner. Subsequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a reference was made to the High Court on the question of the applicable personal law. That question was answered by this court in favour of the Revenue, as result of which the substratum of the appellate orders disappeared and the order of the Gift-tax Officer was restored in full vigour.

Consequent upon the answer given by this court and the restoration of the original order of the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee was called upon by exhibit P-1 order to pay interest under section 32(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in respect of the unpaid amount. It is that order and exhibit P-3 by which that was affirmed that is now challenged in the present proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution.

Section 32(2) as it stood at the relevant time reads:

" 32. Recovery of tax and Penalties.-...

(2) If the amount specified in any notice of demand under section 31 is not paid within the period limited under sub-section (1), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent. per annum from the day commencing after the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1) : ... "

This sub-section corresponds to section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the scope of which and the effect of an order made thereunder had been considered by one of us (Kochu Thommen J.) in K. P. Abdul Kareem Hajee v. ITO [1983] 141 ITR 120 (Ker.) This is what is stated in that judgment (p. 122) :

" In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, or an interim stay granted by the competent authority, the order, although not final, is provisionally executable, subject to restoration. The finality of exhibit P-2A was qualified by and subject to appeal, which was taken before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority itself was likewise provisional during the period allowed for filing an appeal or during the pendency of the appeal. When the order of the AAC concerning the petitioner was finally set aside by the Tribunal, thereby affirming exhibit P-2A order of the ITO, the cloud hanging over exhibit P-2A was removed and its finality was affirmed. Consequently, for the relevant period, exhibit P-2A is deemed to have operated in full vigour to make the petitioner liable in law by reason of the Tribunal's affirmative order. If this is the position in law, which I think it is, s. 220(2) of the I.T. Act was attracted in respect of the amount due from the petitioner as per Ex. P-2A dated December 1, 1973. It is that interest which is now demanded by the ITO, vide Ex. P-6, and affirmed by the Commissioner by Ex. P-7."

This decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of this court in Income-tax Officer v. A. V. Thomas & Co. [1986] 160 ITR 818 (Ker).

Following the principle stated above, we are of the view that exhibit P-1, in so far as it relates to interest, and exhibit P-3 affirming that order, are perfectly valid. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.