Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvi v. Mr. Robert Michael Arthey

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 459 of 2008 + ITA 337 of 2007 ITA 338 of 2007ITA 131 of 2009 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:22.7.2011JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:23.12.2011 (1) ITA 459 of 2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. ..... APPELLANT Versus MR. ROBERT MICHAEL ARTHEY C/o PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD. ..RESPONDENT Through:Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate. (2) ITA 337 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. ..... APPELLANT Versus MR.LESTNER GARNETT . ..RESPONDENT Through:Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate. (3) ITA 338 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. ..... APPELLANT ITA No.459/2008,,337/2007,338/2007,131/2009 Page 1 of 6 Versus MR.LESTNER GARNETT . ..RESPONDENT Through:Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate. (4) ITA 131 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. ..... APPELLANT Versus MR. VIJAY GOPAL JINDAL . ..RESPONDENT Through:Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate. CORAM:HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL A.K.SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: ITA No. 459 of 2008 1. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section 234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also. 2 Vide separate order passed today, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 3. That apart, we find that the tax effect in this appeal is ` 4,79,170/- and in view of the latest guidelines of the CBDT, the appeal is otherwise not entertainable when we find that the issue does not have cascading effect. 4. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest was charged under the aforesaid provision by the Assessing Officer on the ground that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT holding that the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source. 5. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495. this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495. 6. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 337/2007 & ITA 338/2007 7. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section 234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also. 8. Vide separate order passed today, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 9. That apart, we find that the tax effect in this appeal is much less than ` 4 lacs and in view of the latest guidelines of the CBDT, the appeal is otherwise not entertainable when we find that the issue does not have cascading effect. 10. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest was charged under the aforesaid provision by the Assessing Officer on the ground that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the ITAT holding that the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source. 11. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495. 12. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 131/2009 than ` 4 lacs and in view of the latest guidelines of the CBDT, the appeal is otherwise not entertainable when we find that the issue does not have cascading effect. 10. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest was charged under the aforesaid provision by the Assessing Officer on the ground that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the ITAT holding that the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source. 11. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495. 12. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 131/2009 13. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section 234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also. 14. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest of ` 2,90,403/- and `3,56,637/- respectively was charged under Section 234-B & C of the Income-Tax Act by the Assessing Officer on the ground that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT holding that the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source. ITA No.459/2008,,337/2007,338/2007,131/2009 Page 5 of 6 15. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495. 16. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 23, 2011 skb (REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE