TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases and is a notified entity under the Special Courts Act 1992. 2. Ground No.1 and 2 are not pressed and hence, does not require any adjudication. 3. Ground No.3 is as under :- "3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs.2,03,65,051/-." 3.1 Originally the assessment was completed u/s. 144 estimating the income on deposits with Bank. Before the CIT(A), the matter was agitated. During the remand proceedings, the Assessee made a claim of interest on the basis of the stand taken by the custodian that the Assessee has to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Revenue being a party to the same, Assessee claimed such interest. Assessing Officer disallowed the same in the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid lines. In view of that matter, we, by following the findings of the Tribunal in the aforementioned case, set aside the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh in the line of similar direction given by the ITAT as aforementioned. Accordingly, Grounds No.1 2 are allowed for statistical purpose." 3.3 Respectfully following the same, the issue is set aside to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the same according to the stand taken in other cases. Ground allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Ground No.4 is as under :- "4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act." 4.1 Levy of interest was considered in the case of Hitesh Mehta in ITA No.1945/M/2012 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta (supra), the notified person, the assessee in the present case, is not without remedy since it is open to the assessee to take recourse to the remedy available under the direction dated 26 June 2006.We accordingly answer the questions of law as framed in the negative. However, we clarify that it would be open to the notified person to seek a waiver or reduction by making an application to the chief commissioner of Income tax in terms of the order dated 26 June 2006 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." 12.2 The ld. Counsel pointed out that the matter is referred to the same bench for reconsideration in the case of CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rshad S. Mehta and not in the hands of the appellant." 5.1 It is pertinent to mention that the ITAT, in the assessee's group case of Hitesh S Mehta in ITAs 5587,5589,5068/ Mum/2011 dt. 12/06/13 for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 2001-02 has decided a similar additional ground, the adjudication of which reads as under : "4. The Assessee has also filed an application dated 27.05.2010 for admitting the following ground:- "1. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in M.P. No. 41 of 1999, the assets under consideration and the consequential income belongs to Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence, the income assessed by the Assessing Officer ought to have been taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
