9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax demand – The grievance of the assessee is based on the premise that when the tax demand got vacated as a result of order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dated 30.01.2006, no such interest could be charged because interest under section 220(2) is not chargeable when there is neither existing demand nor any default attributable to assessee. Held that:- On this ticklish issue, there are decision in the cases of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. Vs.CIT [2002 (9) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] as well as the latest decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Girnar Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT[2012 (1) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] dated 5th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowed in a reassessment proceedings undertaken under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. The assessee company was successful in getting desired relief in the first appeal. But that decision was reversed by the Hon ble ITAT vide its order dated 30.01.2009 and the Assessing Officer s order was restored by which and as a result the assessee was pushed to square one again as the impugned claim was disallowed. Consequent upon the Tribunal s order, the Assessing Officer passed order giving effect to Tribunal s order. To be more specific on facts, we will narrate facts of assessment year 1997-98, which is the first assessment year out of all the appeals before us. In assessment year 1997-98, the assessee company has shown its total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst this increase of tax demand resulting from charging of interest under section 220(2) of the Act on the tax demand i.e. Rs. 20,20,896/- vide order dated 29.10.2004 for a period of 50 months from December, 2004 to January, 2009. The grievance of the assessee is based on the premise that when the tax demand got vacated as a result of order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dated 30.01.2006, no such interest could be charged because interest under section 220(2) is not chargeable when there is neither existing demand nor any default attributable to assessee. The assessee has no dispute regarding charging of interest from the date of giving effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial determination of taxable income and the amount of interest levied under section 220(2) of the Act:. Assessment Years 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Date of filing of Return 28.11.97 30.11.98 31.12.99 29.11.00 31.10.01 31.10.02 27.11.03 01.11.04 Total income Returned Rs. 1,82,810 1,30,950 1,10,900 67,01,530 82,87,780 1,79,160 1,84,760 1,76,200 Claim made u/s. 80IA of the Act 19,70,517 30,69,607 77,24,358 27,93,542 34,45,142 1,33,16,479 98,31,047 1,35,74,084 Date of initial order passed u/s. 143(1) 24.02.98 26.03.01 08.03.02 14.03.02 31.01.03 21.02.03 30.11.05 13.12.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as on the dates when the orders were passed on 30.01.2009, 24.02.2009 and 10.06.2009, giving effect to the order of the Hon ble ITAT, there being no outstanding tax liability due from the assesse, the assessee could not be treated as assesse-in-default . However from the date of order passed giving effect to CIT(A) s order dated 27.12.2006, the assessee has to be treated as an assesse-in-default, since the assessee has not paid interest under section 220(2) of the Act. So for the period from the date of passing of the order by the learned CIT(A) and upto the order passed by the Assessing Officer given effect, the assessee shall be treated as an assesse-indefault. He has further found that for the period after the CIT(A) s order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
