9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner liable to pay interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the notice of demand u/s 156 for interest u/s 234B is valid without a specific order in the assessment order. 3. Consideration of alternative remedy u/s 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: 1. Legality of the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner liable to pay interest u/s 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 1994-95, declaring an income of Rs.98,515. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found an unaccounted amount of Rs.5 lakhs in the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner surrendered this amount as income to avoid litigation, subject to no penal action or prosecution. On April 20, 1998, the petitioner filed a revised statement of taxable income and paid the additional tax, noting that no interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C was payable. However, on January 12, 2000, the Assessing Officer assessed the taxable income at Rs.5,98,520 and ordered to "Charge interest as per law," initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). A demand notice u/s 156 was issued, including Rs.2,06,940 as interest u/s 234B. The petitioner challenged this demand, alleging it was illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. Whether the notice of demand u/s 156 for interest u/s 234B is valid without a specific order in the assessment order: The petitioner argued that the assessment order did not specifically state the liability to pay interest u/s 234B, relying on the Patna High Court's decision in Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 44, affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. The court noted that the primary rationale in Uday Mistanna Bhandar's case was that the assessee must be made aware that the Assessing Officer has ordered the charging of interest and under which section. In this case, both the assessment order and the demand notice were issued by the same officer on the same day, fulfilling the requirement of the Assessing Officer applying his mind regarding the levy of interest. Thus, the court found no infirmity in the orders. 3. Consideration of alternative remedy u/s 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The respondents argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of revision u/s 264. However, given the court's conclusion on the primary issue, it did not delve into the question of alternative remedy. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the levy of interest u/s 234B. The assessment order and the demand notice were deemed valid as they were issued by the same officer on the same day, fulfilling the requirement of the Assessing Officer applying his mind to the levy of interest. No order as to costs was made.
|
