9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th assessment year 2005-06 and challenges the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 3 June 2016. 4. The only substantial question of law formulated in the memo of appeal and consequently pressed by Mr Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is the following: - "a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in directing to not to levy interest u/s 234B of the Act, on the addition made in Book Profit under MAT being provision for doubtful debts, ignoring the amendment in Explanation 1 to section 115JB in Finance (No. 2) Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 by inserting clause (I), also ignoring the principal laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the settlement commission acting under Sections 245D(4) and 245D(6) does not have the power to reduce or waive interest statutorily payable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 8. The Coordinate Division Bench also noted that the decision in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors (supra) was examined by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prime Securities Ltd. Vs Assistant CIT (Investigation) 333 ITR 464. Therefore, the contention that the decision in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors (supra) was not considered by this Court is incorrect. This decision was considered in Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd (supra) and Prime Securities Ltd. (Supra). Further, the question now sought to be fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, based upon the above submissions, we cannot bypass or ignore the decisions of the Coordinate Benches, which, according to us, answer the substantial question of law proposed by Mr Chhotaray against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 13. Mr Chhotaray then submitted that we should consider the CBDT's circulars, which, according to him, provides that the assessee should approach the Chief Commissioner for redressal in such matters. This contention, which Mr Chhotaray now raises before us, was never raised before the ITAT, perhaps advisedly. 14. Mr Chhotaray complains that "these days none of the Counsel are interested in going to the facts and only wish to argue on the law". Since this is an appeal that can be entertained only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td (supra), Prime Securities Ltd. (Supra) and JSW Energy Ltd (supra). 18. These decisions were delivered in 2020, 2011 and 2015. Undoubtedly, the departments whom Mr Chhotaray represents would know whether the revenue challenged these matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Still, this appeal was instituted, and Mr Chhotaray insisted and argued the matter for a long time. There is no difficulty hearing long arguments, but we expect greater fairness from the revenue in pointing out contrary and binding decisions directly on the issue. Based on a serious argument, an attempt could also be made to distinguish or seek a reference. But binding precedents should not be suppressed or attempted to be attacked so casually. 19. For all the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
