9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt "the Act"). The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act without making any adjustments in the returned income and an intimation dated September 13, 1999, was sent to the petitioner. A copy of this intimation has been produced as annexure P1 with the writ petition. As per this intimation, in addition to the tax due, the following interest was levied: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interest under section 234A 24,144 Interest under section 234B 36,219 Interest under section 234C 18,900 -------------- Total 78,623 -------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 519. He further submitted that the levy of such interest can only be justified under Explanation 1 to section 234B as substituted by the Finance Act, 2001, which had been made applicable retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1989. He pleaded that since the provision for charge of interest has to be construed as substantive law and not merely a machinery provision, it could not be made operative retrospectively. He, therefore, challenged the vires of Explanation 1 in so far it operated retrospectively on the ground that it was bad and arbitrary and violated articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act dated September 13, 1999, and as per the petitioner's own showing, no appeal was provided against the intimation. The petitioner has explained that the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, had been filed "erroneously". There is no explanation for the delay of about two years in approaching this court. Further, even if it were to be assumed that the petitioner had been pursuing a wrong remedy of appeal under a mistaken belief of law, it had, at least by December, 2000, realised that the appeal had been erroneously filed when it did not comply with the notices of hearing issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no explanation for the delay after December, 2000. Still further, the appeal was also dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
