TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this appeal challenging the order dated 14/11/2014 in Appeal No. 0905/2014-15 and 0291/2014-15 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi ( Ld. CIT(A) ). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. Modipon Ltd is a public Ltd company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling polyester filament and nylon-6 yarns. For the assessment year 1987-88 they filed the return of income on 29/07/1987 declaring a total income of ₹ 82,94,178/- and by order dated 29/03/1990 the learned Assessing Officer determinedly income of the assessee at ₹ 11,40,79,686/-. Subsequently, pursuant to the order dated 30th June 1999, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Learned Assessing Officer passed an order dated 15/09/1992 reducing the income of the assessee to ₹ 5,83,45,420/-. By order dated 05/11/1993 Assessing Officer further reduced the same to ₹ 5,60,33,906/-. Again on 26/12/1996 Learned Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect to the consolidated order dated 22/07/1996 passed by the Tribunal, reducing the income to ₹ 92,49,259/-. Again on 29/04/1997 Ld. Assessing Officer passed yet anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,62,85,376/- charged under section 220 (2) of the Act under section 154 of the Act. 6. Revenue is, therefore, in appeal before us challenging the impugned order stating that Ld. CIT(A) committed an error by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd (supra), since in the said case assessee had paid the initial demand under section 143(3) of the Act whereas in the instant case the initial demand under section 143(3) of the Act was not paid. It is further stated by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal that reliance on the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Limited (supra) is also misplaced, inasmuch as the said judgement supports the case of the revenue that the 1st notice of demand does not die on the appeal being accepted by the 1st authority. 7. It is the argument of the Ld. DR that it is not the case of the assessee that they made any payment pursuant to the demand that was raised as per the order dated 29/03/1990 as such merely because they are was modified subsequently several times, the demand does not die. According to him proper course available to the assessee was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned, there is no dispute. When the Learned Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 11,40,79,686/- by order dated 29/03/1990, clearly the excise duty of ₹ 88,80,914/- was not comprised therein. Such addition of ₹ 11,40,79,686/- was reduced by successive orders of the Learned Assessing Officer either to give effect to the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) or the Tribunal or under section 154 of the Act and ultimately by order dated 29/04/1997 the income was determined at ₹ 66,80,645/- much below the returned income. As a matter of fact the income tax computation form incorporated at page No. 63 and 64 of the paper book clearly shows that the latest demand was in the negative by way of refund of ₹ 44,75,708/-which was adjusted in the assessment year 1994-95. It is an admitted fact that the Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 22/07/1996 passed by the Tribunal, and allowed it to become final. In such an event, we find it difficult to agree with the Ld. DR that the demand pursuant to the order dated 29/03/1990 was still alive and had anything to do with the order dated 15/09/2014 which is relevant for this proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) payable on the tax additionally assessed in the rectification order unless there is a demand for the amount so additionally assessed. The Hon ble court further held that subsection (4) of section 154 of the income tax Act states that where an amendment is made under such section, an order shall be passed in writing by income tax authority concerned and subsection (6) states that were any such amendment has the effect of enhancing an assessment order reducing a refund already made, the Assessing Officer shall serve the assessee a notice of demand in prescribed form specifying a sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. 12. In Vikrant Tyres Ltd (supra) the Hon ble Apex Court dealt with the issue of chargeability of interest under section 220 (2) of the act in detail and observed that,- A bare reading of this Section clearly indicates that if the assessee does not pay the amount demanded under a notice issued under Section 156 of the Act within the time stipulated under sub-section (1), the said assessee is liable to pay simple interest at one and one-half per cent for every mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning thereby that no tax or levy can be imposed on a subject by an Act of Parliament without the words of the Statute clearly showing an intention to lay the burden on the subject. In this process, the courts must adhere to the words of the Statute and the so-called equitable construction of those words of the Statute is not permissible. The task of the court is to construe the provisions of the taxing enactments according to the ordinary and natural meaning of the language used and then to apply that meaning to the facts of the case and in that process if the tax-payer is brought within the net he is caught, otherwise he has to go free. This principle in law is settled by this Court in India Carbon Ltd. Ors. v. State of Assam [1997 (6) SCC 479] wherein this Court held Interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levies and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this behalf. A Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Hon. Bharucha, J.) in the case of V.V.S. Sugars v. Government of A.P. Ors. [1999 (4) SCC 192] reiterated the proposition laid down in the India Carbon Ltd.s case (supra) in the following words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was brought to the notice of the Karnataka High Court in the impugned judgment, the said High Court thought it fit not to place reliance on the same which, in our opinion, is erroneous. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that Section 220(2) of the Act cannot be invoked to demand any interest from the appellant for the assessment years in question. 13. In view of the settled position of law we find it difficult to agree with the submissions of the Ld. DR that the assessee should have paid the tax on the amount determined by order dated 29/03/1990 and should have claim refund as and when the addition was reduced or deleted by the appellate authorities or by the Learned Assessing Officer while exercising jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act, or that the demand under order dated 29/03/1990 did not die because of the subsequent orders reducing the income and such a demand was very much alive to infuse breath into order dated 15/09/2014 to justify the chargeability of interest. As observed in the preceding paragraphs we do not find any evidence to show that any notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable pursuant to the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
