9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, not maintainable. 2. That the CIT(A) rightly allowed the direction in respect of charging of interest. 3. During the course of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that he has the instructions not to press this Cross objection. Accordingly, this Cross objection is dismissed as not pressed. 4. In the Departmental appeal i.e. ITA No.425/Ju/2009, the only ground raised reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in directing to recalculate interest u/s 234A for 20 months instead of 58 months as charged by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of consequential effect of the appeal order. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee in response to notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed on 1.5.2006. In this way the interest is chargeable only for 20 months. In support of the contention I would like to bring to your kind notice the finding given by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Priti Pithawala vs ITO (2003) 129 Taxman 79 (Bombay)(Mag.) in which the honorable court have held that a belated return cannot be submitted after the expiry of one year form the end of the Assessment Year. If an assessment is made for the first time under section 147 then the assessee cannot be made liable to pay interest of the period during which it was not possible on the part of the assessee to file return i.e after one year from the end of the Assessment Year, till issuance of notice us/148. 6. The Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to the case of Priti Pithawala vs ITO (supra) directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate interest u/s 234A of the Act for twenty months. Now the department is in appeal. 9. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. In his rival submissions, the ld counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A). He further submitted that the appeal filed by the department is not maintainable because it is belated and no application for condonation of delay has been moved by the department. 10. After considering the submissions of both the parties and material available on record, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
