9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the order passed by the AO under section 154 for charging interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts of the Case: The assessee filed a return of income under section 115JB, paying a total tax of Rs. 9,88,658, which included TDS and payment under section 140. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) without charging interest under sections 234B and 234C. Subsequently, the AO issued a show-cause notice under section 154 proposing to charge interest under these sections, citing CBDT's Circular No. 13, dated 9th Nov., 2001, which directed the charging of interest in cases where income was computed under section 115JB. The AO then rectified the order under section 154 and charged interest amounting to Rs. 56,614 and Rs. 46,360 under sections 234B and 234C, respectively. 2. Appeal to CIT(A): The assessee appealed against the AO's order to the CIT(A), arguing that the computation of income under section 115JB could only be made after the close of the accounting year, making it impossible to ascertain the liability for advance tax when due. The assessee relied on the Karnataka High Court judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. vs. CIT and the Tribunal's decision in Tej International (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, stating that the issue was debatable and fell outside the scope of section 154, which is limited to mistakes apparent from the record. The CIT(A) thus cancelled the order under section 154. 3. Revenue's Appeal: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the Board's Circular No. 13 was binding on the Revenue authorities, justifying the AO's rectification under section 154. The Revenue emphasized that the issue was not debatable and that the AO was correct in charging interest as per the circular. 4. Assessee's Counter-Arguments: The assessee maintained that the scope of section 154 is limited to apparent mistakes of law or fact, and a debatable issue falls outside its purview. The assessee cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, to support the argument that the issue was debatable. The assessee also pointed out that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. did not exist when the AO passed the order under section 154, making the issue debatable at that time. 5. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined the facts and the legal positions. It noted that the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. had dissented from the Karnataka High Court's view and held that interest under sections 234B and 234C was mandatory even when income was computed under section 115J (now 115JB). The Tribunal highlighted that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, even if delivered after the AO's order, would apply retroactively to the date when the relevant section was inserted in the statute, as per the Full Bench decision in CIT vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Act as interpreted by the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order, holding that the AO was justified in charging interest under sections 234B and 234C as per the Board's circular and the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation. 7. Result: The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
|
