9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Also taking into consideration the decision of the hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai B. Shah v. ITO [2013 (10) TMI 1025 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5 in the case of brother of the assessee namely "Sh. Bharat Vinod Daftary" - I. T. A. No. 7220 /M/ 2013(assessment year 2007-08). - - - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - R. C. SHARMA (Accountant Member) and SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member) Sanjiv M Shah, authorised representative, for the appellant. Vijay Kumar Bora for the respondent. ORDER The order of the Bench was delivered by 1. Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member).-The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) dated September 12, 2013. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal : 1. In the circumstances and facts of my case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in : a. confirming charging of interest under section 234C at ₹ 4,51,054 instead of the duly chargeable interest under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with provisions of law. 5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated April 16, 2012 giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby charging interest under section 234A, stating that the assessee had short paid the taxes before the due date of filing the return. The Assessing Officer also computed and charged interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. Against the said order giving effect to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order, the assessee again filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. The contention of the assessee with regard to the levy of interest of ₹ 4,51,056 under section 234C has been that the interest should be charged only at ₹ 1,20,855. That the long-term capital gain had accrued to the assessee on March 28, 2007, i.e., after March 15, 2007 when the date of payment of last instalment of advance tax had expired. Since the assessee had not paid advance tax on or before March 31, 2007 in respect of capital gains accrued, the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 234C for only a period of one month from March 16, 2007 to March 31, 2007. The subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of taxes as on July 31, 2007, i.e., on the last date of filing of the return. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer to the effect that interest under section 234A is not charged only in the event of the assessee having paid full taxes before the due date of return of income. However in the case in hand there was a shortfall in the payment of tax on the due date of filing of the return. He therefore held that the levy of interest under section 234A was mandatory. He rejected the contention of the assessee that all the interest was duly paid on the due date of filing of return, i.e., on July 31, 2007. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of the learned representatives of the parties. The assessee had received long-term capital gains on March 28, 2007. The contention of the learned authorised representative has been that interest under section 234C should have been computed only for a period of one month from March 16, 2007 to March 31, 2007, because the liability for tax has accrued after the date fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234C keeping in view the said decision of the High Court in the case of Smt. Premlata Jalani [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj). The asses see has computed the interest at ₹ 1,32,567. Apparently, the computation given by the assessee appears to be correct. Neverthe less, the Assessing Officer may verify and charge it accordingly. 4.2 As regards the interest chargeable under section 234B, it is noted that the Assessing Officer has computed the amount at ₹ 5,42,106 whereas as per the computation given by the assessee this amount should be ₹ 5,02,813. What I find that this difference has been on account of the increased liability of interest under section 234C which was worked by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 4,66,459 instead of the amount of ₹ 1,32,567 as contended by the assessee. The issue as regards the interest under section 234C has already been decided by me in above para 4.1. After that interest under section 234C is revised, the interest under section 234B will have to be modified. The Assessing Officer accordingly is directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
