9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, and Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Advocate ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, A.C.J. (Oral) This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) against the order of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1997-1998. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- 8(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in holding that interest u/s 234A and 234B is to be levied on returned income instead of assessed income in view of the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.1989? 3. It is not necessary to consider the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2001 in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Act in view of the subsequent proceedings. In view of the subsequent proceedings, that issue has become academic. The facts in this regard are as follows:- On 02.05.2001, the Assessing Officer applied for/recommended the rectification of the order dated 23.02.2001 in view of the Finance Act, 2001. On 04.05.2001, the department filed an ITA-194-2001 against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 23.02.2001. On 06.12.2001, the CIT (Appeals) rectified the order dated 23.02.2001 by levying interest on the assessed income and not on the returned income. The respondent/assessee had also filed an appeal against the order dated 06.12.2001. The Tribunal by an order dated 25.08.2006 disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent submitted that the judgement in Parkash Agro Industries Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is not applicable to the present case. We are unable to agree. Questions (1) and (4) raised in that case read as under:- 1. Whether the appellant having paid the tax payable as per return, to visit him with a liability of interest which he could not have imagined and as held in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CTO [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC), would be asking him to do the rare impossible? 4. Whether in view of the fact that the return of the appellant had been accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, interest could be charged even on the basis of the amended Explanation when it specifically defines assessed tax as the tax on total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
