Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. Shri Suresh Balkrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1483 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai Versus Shri Suresh Balkrishnan ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.A.R. Malhotra with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 23[rd] January 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue, following question has been raised for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and holding that the assessee's appeal is maintainable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 2.The respondent had filed an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) against levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer. The grievance of the appellant – Revenue is that no appeal can be entertained under Section 246A of the Act and it only challenges the levy of interest. In support of the above, the appellant – Revenue places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Company Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 160 ITR 961. The Tribunal in its order has recorded that the respondent – assessee has disputed his liability to pay interest on the ground that there was no obligation to pay advance tax and the Apex court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Limited (Supra) has taken a view that an appeal against charging of interest alone is maintainable if he challenges / disputes leviability itself. In this case, the levy of interest was disputed by the respondent on the ground that there was no obligation to pay advance tax and, therefore, appeal under Section 246A of the Act is maintainable. 3.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)