TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued to the assessee by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the order of assessment passed on January 29, 2001, has to be rectified on the ground that the interest payable under section 234B had not been levied while passing the order of assessment. An order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act was passed as per anneuxre B dated June 28, 2001. This order upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal. Held that- in the light of the judgment of CIT v. Ranchi Club 2008 -TMI - 40255 - SUPREME Court, while passing order of assessment. Just because there was a subsequent amendment, the Assessing Officer could not reopen the file. Thus the order of rectification is not valid allow the appeal. - 236 of 2004 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the assessee by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the order of assessment passed on January 29, 2001, has to be rectified on the ground that the interest payable under section 234B had not been levied while passing the order of assessment. An order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act was passed as per anneuxre B dated June 28, 2001. According to the Assessing Officer, the order of assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1998-99 and he had not charged the interest payable under section 234B relying upon the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Ranchi Club Ltd.'s case [2001] 247 ITR 209 and that the order of rectification was required to be passed by him in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of this case. According to him, the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 has taken a view at the relevant point of time when two views were possible, if the Assessing Officer has taken one view, but on account of subsequent amendment, the view cannot be held to be invalid and the same has to be held as valid. Relying upon this judgment, he submits that the judgment relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the Tribunal was not rendered under the provisions of the Income-tax Act but under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. According to him, considering the background of this case, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, he requests thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act, 2001, dated June 1, 2001, it is clear that as on the date of passing the order of assessment this amendment was not there. By reading the order of rectification passed under section 154 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax has categorically stated that while passing the order of assessment for the assessment year 1998-99, following the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209 he had not levied interest under section 234B. But he has reopened the case based on the amendment of section 234B by the Finance Act, 2001. From reading of the order passed under section 154, it is clear to us that while passing an order of assessment, the Assessing Officer had not committed any error. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
