9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay interest – Reliance has been placed upon ratio recorded by a Division Bench of this Court in “The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula V/s M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula's case [2008 (4) TMI 214 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] – Decided against the Revenue. - ITA No.15 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-10-2013 - Rajive Bhalla And Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate ORDER Rajive Bhalla, J. The revenue lays challenge to orders dated 16.02.2010 and 24.06.2011, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)'), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable. Counsel for the revenue further submits that as default relating to deposit of advance tax has been affirmed, the CIT(A) and the ITAT could not have deleted the interest. It is further submitted that interest under Section 234B of the Act is mandatory and unlike in the case of penalty, does not confer discretion on the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authorities to set aside the interest. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee was under an erroneous but bonafide belief that deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act is available. It is further submitted that as it was not possible for the assessee to foresee the amendment in the Finance Act, the CIT(A) and the ITAT have rightly held that interest could not be levied. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comes within the sweep of this section. The pre-condition for invoking Section 234B of the Act is that the assessee must be fastened with the liability to pay advance tax. As the assessee was not liable to make the payment of advance tax, the case of the assessee would not come within the ambit of Section 234B of the Act. 20. Since this amendment/clarification was given in Finance Bill, 2007, it is quite clear that before this date, there was some ambiguity which was sought to be clarified. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that this claim for deduction u/s 80IA is valid. In J.K.Synthetics vs. CTO (1994) 4 Supreme Court 276, it was held that where claim for exemption was bonafide but disallowed, tax can be levied but no interest ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
