9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gra in ITA No.1506/Del/95 for the assessment year 1991-92. The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in manufacturing of tooth powder and its sale. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer made certain additions in the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in the raw material and sale outside the books, vide order dated 14.5.1990. The matter was carried in appeal before CIT(A), Agra Bench, Agra who allowed the appeal in part by the order dated 18.1.1995. Before him, one of the grounds raised was with regard to charge of interest under sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C. The assessee contended that the interest could not be charged under the aforesaid sections in the absence of any ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 81 of 2002 & 82 of 2002 CIT-II Kanpur versus M/s Deep Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd., Kanpur decided on 3.8.2011 and it has been held that the earlier decision given by the Apex Court in the case of CIT versus Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) still holds the field and unless in the order of Assessing Authority, it is ordered that interest be charged, a notice of demand charging interest cannot be issued. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the case of CIT Versus Anjum M.H Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), a constitution Bench of the Apex Court while interpreting the power of the Settlement Commission to waive charging income of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Bench of our Court, in the case of CIT-II Kanpur versus M/s Deep Awadh Hotels P Ltd., Kanpur (Supra) wherein the following has been held: On the third question it is submitted by Shri A.N. Mahajan that in para 16 of the order of the Tribunal the plea that the interest under Section 234 (B) cannot be charged unless it is included in the assessment order or in the extra sheet or additional sheet attached with the assessment order in relation to computation and charging of interest. Shri Mahajan submits that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. is not correct. He submits that the charging of interest under Section 243A, 243B and 243C is mandatory. He has relied upon the judgments in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Versus Anjum M.H Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under section 156 of the Act. Be that as it may, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT-II Kanpur versus M/s Deep Awadh Hotels P Ltd., Kanpur (Supra), holding that in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in the assessment order, interest cannot be charged by issuing a notice of demand, the contrary argument of the learned standing counsel for the Revenue cannot be accepted. So far as this Court is concerned, we are bound by the Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
