9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URESHI) 1. Through this note, it is pointed out that in our order dated 11.09.2017 in Tax Appeal No. 31 of 2003, there were certain typographical errors. To correct such errors, the said order is recalled and a fresh order is passed as under: 1. The appeal was admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law : Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not substantially erred in law in holding that interest under sections 234B and 234C is not chargeable if the total income is assessed to tax under section 115J of the Income Tax Act? 2. At one stage, the appeal was disposed of by judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.6.2011. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Joint Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, accordingly, submitted that the court may pass such order as it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of the facts and submissions noted hereinabove, it is evident that the earlier exparte judgment and order dated 24.06.2011 had been made by this court on an erroneous impression that the controversy involved in this case stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rolta India Limited (supra). A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rolta India Limited (supra) makes it evident that the same was rendered in the context of the provisions of sections 115JA and 115JB of the Act, whereas the facts of the present case relate to the provisions of section 115J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No.31 of 2003 has been rendered on a misreading of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rolta India Limited (supra). Moreover, this court in the case of Farmson Pharmaceuticals Guj. Ltd (supra) has followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (supra) as affirmed by the Supreme Court and has held that interest cannot be charged under section 234B and 234C of the Act where the total income is determined under sec 115J of the Act. The said decision has been rendered on 07.04.2011, that is, prior in point of time to the judgment and order dated 24.06.2011 which is sought to be recalled. In the aforesaid premises, the application deserves to be allowed. 3. The said order recalling the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
