9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer . 3. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3). The assessee s counsel filed an application u/s 154 stating that interest u/s 234B should not be levied as the income of the assessee is deductible at source u/s 195. Hence he claimed that interest u/s 234B should be deleted. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee s contention, he referred to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others 252 ITR 1 and rejected the assessee s contention. 3.1 Further, assessee had submitted that interest u/s 234D is to be charged on the amount of refund received by the assessee i.e. the total refund less TDS deducted on interest granted to the assessee. Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leviable only if the assessee is liable to pay advance tax. in our client s case the same is not applicable as the entire amount is subject to Tax deduction at source. Hence, interest u/s 234B is not leviable on our client. In the said assessment order, the Assessing Officer has levied interest under section 234D of ₹ 2,715,656/-. Subject to other provisions of the Act, where any refund is granted to the assessee under sub-section (1) of section 143, and a) no refund is due on regular assessment or b) the amount refunded under sub-section (1) of the section 143 exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. The assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one half percent on the whole or the excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others (252 ITR 1). He contended that in that judgement the Hon ble Supreme Court, held that interest was chargeable by operation of law and that none had discretion to waive it except in the manner provided in law. The facts involved in this case, according to Ld. A.R., are distinguishable in as much as in this case, no advance tax was payable and the issue of levy of interest u/s 234B did not even arise. In order to strengthen these arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Sedco Forex Intl. Drilling Co. (264 ITR 320) and C.I.T. v Halliburton Offshore Services (271 ITR 395); both holding that interest is not leviable u/s 234B in any case where tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts relied upon. We find that it is the contention of the assessee that interest u/s 234B and 234D have been wrongly assumed to be covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in C.I.T. vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others (252 ITR 1). In the said case the Court has held that interest was chargeable by operation of law and that none had discretion to waive it except in the manner provided in law. However, the facts in the present case are distinguishable in as much as, no advance tax was payable and the issue of levy of interest u/s 234B did not even arise. Moreover, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Sedco Forex Intl. Drilling Co. (264 ITR 320) and C.I.T. v Halliburton Offshore Services (271 ITR 395); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
