9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trospective amendment made after the close of the relevant financial year. In these circumstances, the assessee could not be branded as a defaulter and be charged interest under section 234C of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 880/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - SHRI JASON P. BOAZ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sumit Kumar For The Respondent : Shri Nishant Thakkar ORDER PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai dated 27/11/2013 for assessment year 2005- 05. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under:- 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of cellul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the addition of provision for bad debts amounting to ₹ 30,79,21,638/-, to which adjustment the assessee had consented vide letter dated 19/12/2011. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for assessment year 2005- 06 dated 04/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai challenging, inter alia, the charging of interest u/s.234C and 234D of the Act in its case. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order dated 27/11/2013 allowing the assessee partial relief i.e. deleting the interest charged u/s. 234C of the Act and upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2005-06 dated 04/03/2013, the Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer in the matter. 4.2.1 Per contra, the Ld. Representative for the assessee supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the interest it was charged u/s. 234C of the Act. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that no advance tax liability subsequently arising due to amendment in law, that too retrospectively, could be fastened on the assessee and, therefore, the assessee could not be charged interest u/s. 234C of the Act. It is submitted that in coming to this finding, the Ld. CIT(A)followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of S.R. Investment Ltd., ITA No.6444/Mum/2011 for assessment year 2005-06. 4.2.2 The Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax became due only because of the amendment by way of insertion of clause(i) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act by Finance (No.2) Act,2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2001, was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires (P) Ltd. and in its order in ITA No.5814/Mum/2011 dated 14/2/2014, the Co-ordinate Bench held as under at para 6 to 6.1 thereof:- 6. The next issue relates to the computation of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The ld AR submitted that clause (i) to Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act 2009 were retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessee, while computing the current income for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the amendment having been made operative retrospectively. It was due t the filing of revised statement of assessable income, that the book profit was increased by the amount of the deferred tax. But for the retrospective amendment, the assessee was not liable to be taxed on account of adjustment of deferred tax. Undeniable, this is the obtaining legal position as per Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. CIT (2002)(174 CTR (SC) 521; (2002)(255 ITR 273)(SC) and Asst. Cit Vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd (2007)(111 TTJ (Kol) 230. Now, the amendment having come about only by virtue of Finance Act, 2008, obviously there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, as has been recognized in Priyanka Overseas Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT (2002)(75 TTJ (Delhi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
