Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 729 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWaiver of interest u/s 234B - failure to pay advance tax by wrongly claiming business loss/depreciation loss - contention of the petitioner that the levy of interest on the petitioner u/s 234 B is purely on account of recasting of the taxable income for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and not because of any fresh income being assessed to tax which the petitioner had failed to return - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is not as if amounts were not paid under the JV agreement or amounts due were written off by the petitioner. The petitioner however claimed higher business loss and the depreciation loss during the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 as the amount was not paid by the developer in time as per the JV agreement dated 30.8.1986. However, the JV agreement dated 30.8.1986 was not frustrated as was projected. The project was delayed and during the course of time there were further payments made by the developer to the petitioner and therefore there was accrual of income in the books of account of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was liable to that extent. The assessments for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 were reopened/rectified as the petitioner had wrongly claimed business loss and depreciation loss. The re-assessments were completed for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 on 22.11.1996 and on 22.3.1999 which resulted in the increase of the positive income of the petitioner. The petitioner had however failed to pay advance tax by wrongly claiming business loss/depreciation loss during the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91. Therefore it cannot be stated that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the above notification issued under section 119 (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. None of the situation contemplated under the attracted the CBDT Notification dated 23.05.1996 As a passing reference it may also be relevant to refer to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Ranjinikant and Sons [2017 (6) TMI 922 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . A division bench of this court held that since the tax was paid only after the revenue had passed the reassessment order, waiver from payment of interest cannot be allowed. This is similar to the present case. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent while rejecting the application filed with the petitioner for waiver of interest u/s 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in terms of Notification No.400/234/95-IT (B) dated 23.5.1996. Therefore, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed
|