TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t u/s 234A of the Act later on he passed an order u/s 154 on 10.05.2013 and created an additional demand of ₹ 2,14,9,438/- being interest for six months which the assessee was liable to be charged u/s 234A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the demand for interest by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ranchi Club Ltd.[2000 (8) TMI 79 - SUPREME Court] The conclusion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. is that in the absence of any specific mention of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, no interest would be recovered from the assessee merely by way of a demand notice. We further find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case that the decision of Ld. CIT(A)-2 is merely based on the fact that order to charge interest is to contain a specific direction giving reference to the section under which interest is to be charged and where such an order is silent on whether interest is leviable, the notice of demand u/s 156 cannot go beyond the order demand interest. 3. Appellant craves leave to amend or add any or more grounds of appeal 3. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was required to pay interest u/s 234A of the Act which is a statutory provision and which the assessee had not paid and therefore Assessing Officer vide rectification order u/s 154 passed an order to pay interest u/s 234A of the Act. It was submitted that Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he original assessment order. 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone though the material placed on record. We find that assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss of ₹ 2,84,909/- The return of income was filed on 31.03.2010 which was required to be filed on 30.09.2009. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 23.12.2012 completed the assessment after making certain additions and in the body of assessment order charged interest u/s 234B. However, he did not make any direction to charge any interest u/s 234A of the Act later on he passed an order u/s 154 on 10.05.2013 and created an additional demand of ₹ 2,14,9,438/- being interest for six months which the assessee was liable to be charged u/s 234A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the same to be a mistake apparent from record, the AO rectified the assessment order and charged interest at ₹ 21,49,438/- u/s 154 of the Act vide order dated 10-05-2013. The decision of hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ranchi Club reported in 247 ITR 209 (SC) is squarely applicable in the present case of the appellant. The hon ble Delhi High Court and Rajasthan High Court have followed the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209 in the following cases even after the judgment in the case of Anjuman M. H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). ( i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd (2003) 261 ITR 220 (Del) ( ii) CIT vs Inchcape India (P) Ltd (2003) 179 ITR 212 (De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
