9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and law passed the order. The principles laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that the assessee in spite of the demand notice issued u/s 154 demanding an amount which is payable to the Department, has not paid the said amount within the stipulated time i.e., a period of 30 days. As per the provisions of Section 220(2) assessee is liable to pay interest, especially as there is no specific time for fixation of time limit for charging interest. The power to levy the interest, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has been exercised within a reasonable time. Substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and the consequential demand payable thereon was finally determined at Rs.1,63,153/-. 3.2 Accordingly, competent authority issued notice dated 04.08.2006 directing the assessee to pay an amount of Rs.1,63,153/- after adjusting the amount of taxes paid Rs.86,862/- and Rs.5,000/- in respect of the amounts paid towards penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively inclusive of the interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Act as on that date. Thereupon, the assessee submitted petition on 17.08.2006 for granting refund due on account of the penalty paid. The Income Tax Officer after considering the representation submitted by the assessee has passed the order holding that the assessee has not paid the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally raised the ground of limitation before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad and the Tribunal. Both the authorities without properly considering the same, simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the same is contrary to law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgments in i) Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (1996) 222 ITR 672 (AP) ; ii) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. U.B. Electronic Instruments Limited [2015] 371 ITR 314 (T AP) ; iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS) v. Anagram Wellington Assets Management Company Limited [2016] 389 ITR 654 (Guj) ; iv) Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation) and another v. Executive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 220(2) of the Act rightly charged interest for the delayed payment of tax by the assessee, as the assessee has not paid the tax for a period of more than six years. The Assessing Officer has rightly charged the interest invoking the provisions of Section 220(2) of the Act and there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for charging interest. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions in i) Bombay Gas Company Limited vs. Gopal Bhiva 1963 LawSuit (SC) 143 ; ii) M/s.Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Union of India and others AIR 1998 Supreme Court 688 and iii) Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax I, International Taxation, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad another (W.P.No.1513 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned in sub-section (1) and ending with the day on which the amount is paid. Thus, the above said provision clearly reveals that the assessee is liable for payment of interest if the tax amount demanded under Section 156 of the Act within the stipulated time. In the case on hand, the assessee has not paid the demanded amount of Rs.1,63,153/- towards tax due and payable to the Department within the stipulated period and the Income Tax Officer rightly exercised the powers conferred under Section 220(2) of the Act. 9. Section 154 of the Act deals with rectification of mistake. The aforesaid provision is applicable only in case of arithmetical or clerical error. In the case on hand, there is no arithmetical error apparent in the order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charging of interest invoking the provisions of Section 220(2) of the Act beyond period of limitation of four years dismissed the appeal, is not tenable on the ground that the Tribunal as well as Commissioner after due verification of the records and also the provisions of the Act and law passed the order. 12. The principles laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the ground that the assessee in spite of the demand notice issued under Section 154 of the Act demanding an amount of Rs.1,63,153/-, which is payable to the Department, has not paid the said amount within the stipulated time i.e., a period of 30 days. As per the provisions of Section 220(2) of the Act, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
