9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was aware about the delay in deposit of tax and filing of return and therefore the onus cannot be shifted to the buyer. The action of the Ld. Revenue Authorities cannot be at fault and therefore the confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-NFAC. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly appreciated the facts of the case as well as the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 before deciding the issue on hand against the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) -NFAC on this issue. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C of the Act amounting to Rs.16,93,406/- and Rs. 1,50,659/- respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC considered the submissions of the assessee, granted part relief to the assessee to the extent of interest levied U/s. 234C of the Act and confirmed the interest levied U/s. 234B of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued at length at para 5.3 of his order before deciding the issue against the assessee. For the sake of reference, relevant para 5.3 of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is reproduced herein below: "5.3. Interest under section 234B is charged from 1st April of the following the Financial Year. The appellant had sold the property and had received the full consideration. He was aware that the tax had not been deducted U/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act. So, he was required to deposit the Advance Tax by the 31st March of the previous year. In such a case, there would not have been any interest liability U/s. 234B, which is charged from 1st April till the date of assessment / determination of tax. The appellant was aware about the delay in deposit of tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
