9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of Rs.225.86 crores comprised of two components i.e. Rs.114 crores towards the alleged principal tax liability and Rs.110 crores towards the purported interest liability. Rs.110 crores interest liability can be broken up into three components first being an amount of Rs.75 crores raised as per the demand notice under section 156 dated 16.03.2012 for a period prior to the date of notice, thus this demand is ex facie bad inasmuch as section 220(2) contemplates charging of interest for nonpayment of a demand raised under section 156 and that, too, after 30 days thereof. In the present case the demand itself was raised on 16.03.2012 therefore there cannot be any interest charged for a period prior to it. Interest demanded of Rs.15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 - MR. BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND MR. R.V.EASWAR, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr N. Venkataraman, Sr. Adv. with Mr Tarun Gulati, Mr K. Gulati, Mr Sparsh Bhargava and Mr Rohan Batra, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr N.P. Sahni, Adv. with Mr R. Sinha, Mr Amrit Pal Singh, Adv. with Mr Rupinder Pal Singh, Adv. for UOI/R-1. JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-17, New Delhi and it pertains to the demand allegedly outstanding on account of the orders passed by the assessing officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) pertaining to the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Act is four years from the end of the financial year in which the assessment is completed. In other words, the last date was 31.03.2011. However, the notice itself has been issued beyond that date on 02.03.2012 and the order under section 154 has been passed on 23.03.2012 and therefore the entire demand of Rs.92,54,79,604/- is time barred. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also on this aspect of the matter. He submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the said order under section 154 and the same is pending. He also submitted that an appeal has also been filed by the petitioner against the original assessment order dated 29.12.2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 and that is yet to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said figure of Rs.110 crores can be broken up into three components. The first component being an amount of Rs.75 crores which has been raised as per the demand notice under section 156 dated 16.03.2012 under section 220(2) of the said Act. If we examine the said demand notice, the said demand has been raised on 16.03.2012 for a period prior to the date of notice. More particularly, for a period of 50 months prior to the date of the notice, which would entail the period beginning February 2008 and ending on March 2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this demand is ex facie bad inasmuch as section 220(2) contemplates charging of interest for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment was found to be satisfied by the respondent/assess, the payment of interest under Section 234(B) for failure to pay advance tax in anticipation of such liability created on a future year, based on an amendment cannot be made. We are, therefore, convinced that the conclusion arrived at by the C.I.T. (Appeals) as well as that of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. We therefore do not find any scope to entertain these appeals. The substantial question of law raised in these tax case appeals are answered in favour of the assessee. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 8. We are now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was taken in appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, the said demand of Rs.30 crores on the issue of annual licence fee would have to be ignored. Here again, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we prima facie are of the view that the said sum of Rs.30 crores would have to be kept aside from the demand raised by the revenue for the purposes of stay. As such, a balance sum of Rs.54 crores remains on account of the demand for tax. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to set off this sum of Rs.54 crores against a payment of Rs.87 crores for the assessment year 2008-09. However, we are not inclined to accept that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as our focus is on the two assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and this was not the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
