9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. N.L. Agarwal JUDGMENT In both appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:- In DBITA No. 107/2018 i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the charge of interest amounting to ₹ 4,36,630/- by the ld. AO u/s 234B of the Act of 1961? ii) Whether the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 106/2018 i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the charge of interest amounting to ₹ 20,14,476/- by the ld. AO u/s 234A 234B of the Act of 1961? ii) Whether the ld. ITAT is right under law while holding the provisions of Sec. 115JC at par with the provisions of Sec. 115JA and 115JB in respect of liability of payment of advance tax prescribed u/s 208 charging of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of non-payment of Advance Tax which cannot be computed without adjustment of total income as provided under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115JC and the application of the provisions of said section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken us to the provisions of Section 115JB 115JC and also Finance Act, 2013 so also explanation to 115JB and contended that explanation which was subsequently inserted was not there when the decision was rendered in Rolta India Ltd. (supra) by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal while considering the matter has specifically observed as under:- 3. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that while filing the return of income the assessee made payment of alternative minimum tax under the provisions of section 115JC however, while completing the assessment the AO charged interest u/s 234B for not paying the alternative minimum tax as per scheme of advance tax u/s 208. The Ld. AR has contended that the provisions of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on requiring payment of advance tax u/s 208 of the Act. Thus, in the entire chapter there is no a single word referring to payment of interest of any type leave aside section 234B. The ld. AR has further contended that deeming provisions create a legal fiction only for a definite purpose and they are limited to that purpose only and should not be extended beyond that unless it is clearly and expressly provided. Therefore, it is not permissible to impose the liability of supposition of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Elphinstone Sps Wvg. Mills Co Ltd 40 ITR 142 (SC) (ii) Balkrishnan Memon (MK) vs. ACED 83 ITR 162 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Amarchand N Shroof 48 ITR 59 (SC) (iv) Executor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is allowed on payment of AMT. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee cannot be held liable for advance tax section 208 on account of tax liability u/s 115JC and consequently no interest can be levied u/s 234B on such tax liability. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 as well as decisions of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of JCIT vs. Sumit Industries Ltd. 54 taxmann.com 345 and decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Rana Sugars Ltd. 14 taxmann.com 191. The ld. DR has also relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
