Deputy Commissioner Of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna v. Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.425 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus Patna.................................................................Appellants 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.426 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.427 of 2008 ============================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.428 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.429 of 2008 ============================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh (HUF) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna.......... Respondent ============================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.431 of 2008 ============================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh (HUF) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna.......... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.432 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh (HUF) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna....... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.433 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh( HUF ) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna......... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.434 of 2008 Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh (HUF) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna....... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.433 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh( HUF ) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna......... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.434 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh( HUF), son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.435 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.437 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh ( HUF), son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna..Respt. ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.438 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.439 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== With Miscellaneous Appeal No.440 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.441 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh( HUF ), son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna.....Respondent 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.441 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh( HUF ), son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna.....Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.443 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.444 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.446 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh(HUF) son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna...... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.447 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh(HUF), son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Vihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna....... Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.448 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.449 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.450 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus with Miscellaneous Appeal No.449 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.450 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.451 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.452 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.453 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-V, Patna.................................................................Appellants Versus 1. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Govind Singh, Basant Bihar Market, Kankarbagh, Patna........................ Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : (In MA No.425 of 2008) For the Appellant : Mr. Harshwardhan Pd. Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Jr.S.C. ( In all the cases ) For the Respondent/ Mr.K.N. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. K.C.K. Sinha, Advocate ( In all the cases.) (In MA No.426 of 2008) For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.428 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.429 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : r. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.431 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.432 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.433 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.434 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.435 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.437 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.438 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.439 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.440 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.441 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.443 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.444 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.446 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.447 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.448 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.449 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.450 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.451 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr.. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.452 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In MA No.453 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 7 13-08-2012 Heard the parties in respect of limitation petition seeking condonation of one day delay in preferring these appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. The limitation petitions are allowed. All these appeals have been heard together as they relate to same parties and involve common questions of law. The appellant in all these appeals is Department of Income Tax and the respondent is the assessee either in individual or H.U.F. capacity. Learned counsel for the Department has advanced common submissions for deciding whether these appeals involve substantial questions of law or not. According to the submissions advanced, the substantial question of law arising from the impugned order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna is :- whether interest under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax Act is to be charged in the given situation mandatorily without requiring specific order of the assessing officer for charging of interest. In support of his submission and stand learned counsel for the Department took us through the common order under appeal, particularly paragraph 7.9 of that order wherein the issue relating to interest under the aforesaid provisions of the Income Tax Act has been considered. The discussions made by the Tribunal in paragraph 7.9 of the judgment under appeal discloses that there was no issue whether the relevant provisions create a mandatory obligation to pay interest without requirement of any specific order by the assessing officer. The Tribunal considered the issue relating to interest in an entirely different perspective. The discussions show that in the earlier and original round of proceeding, learned P14 / 16 In support of his submission and stand learned counsel for the Department took us through the common order under appeal, particularly paragraph 7.9 of that order wherein the issue relating to interest under the aforesaid provisions of the Income Tax Act has been considered. The discussions made by the Tribunal in paragraph 7.9 of the judgment under appeal discloses that there was no issue whether the relevant provisions create a mandatory obligation to pay interest without requirement of any specific order by the assessing officer. The Tribunal considered the issue relating to interest in an entirely different perspective. The discussions show that in the earlier and original round of proceeding, learned P14 / 16 Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal ) had directed to delete interest charged under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act on the ground that there was no direction in the assessment order for charging of interest, nor details of the interest so charged was available in the demand notice/notices. The Tribunal further noticed that part of the order of the learned Commissioner Income Tax ( Appeal ) was not assailed by the department when it preferred appeal before the Tribunal in the first round. The learned Tribunal, no doubt passed an order whereby the assessing officer was required to consider a limited issue as to whether a particular property was acquired from HUF fund or individual fund, but no interference was made by the Tribunal with the order of the learned CIT (Appeal ) directing to delete the interest charged under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has held that non-chargeability of interest had acquired finality in the first round of proceeding itself. On going through the relevant orders passed by the learned C.I.T. ( Appeal ) and the Tribunal in the original round of proceeding it is evident that the Tribunal did not interfere with the order of C.I.T. ( Appeal ) in respect of deletion of interest charged under the relevant provisions of the Act and the remand was a limited one not relating to chargeability of the interest. In such a situation the substantial questions of law advanced by learned counsel for the Department does not arise in these appeals. The issue decided by the Tribunal is quite different and there can be no scope to take a different view from what has been taken by the Tribunal in view of earlier order passed by C. I. T.( Appeal) and the Tribunal which have already attained finality. We find that the Department is actually aggrieved by the views taken by the C.I.T. ( Appeal ) and the Tribunal in the original and first round of proceeding and the subsequent order of C.I.T. and the Tribunal cannot be faulted if the orders passed earlier were not challenged, as is the situation in the present case. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any substantial question of law involved in these appeals so as to require consideration by this Court. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)