I. T. A v. Sd/- Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938 ITA.No. 1468 of 2009 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 901/Coch/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 28-11-2008 -------- APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:-------------------------------- M/S.APPOLLO TYRES LIMITED,6TH FLOOR,CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,COCHIN-31. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.TERRY V.JAMES BY ADV. SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I. T. A. No.1468 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. aThis appeal is filed by the Revenue aggrieved bythe order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Kochi Bench in I.T.A. No.901/Coch/2007. The two questionsof law that are framed for the consideration of this Court areas follows: “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and also in the absence of anyspecification in the provision of section 234Dcan not interest be charged for period prior tothe introduction of the provision with effect from1-6-2003?of the case and also in the absence of anyspecification in the provision of section 234Dcan not interest be charged for period prior tothe introduction of the provision with effect from1-6-2003? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case (and in the absence of a finding thatthe issue is a debatable issue) the Tribunal isright in law and fact in holding that the interestunder Section 234D cannot be charged from26-5-2000 to 1-6-2003?”of the case (and in the absence of a finding thatthe issue is a debatable issue) the Tribunal isright in law and fact in holding that the interestunder Section 234D cannot be charged from26-5-2000 to 1-6-2003?” I. T. A. No.1468 of 2009 2. The issue as to whether interest under Section234D of the Income Tax Act can be charged only with effectfrom 01.06.2003, the date from which the Section has beenintroduced in the Act, has already been considered by thisCourt in the judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax v.Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. ([2010] 323 ITR584 (Ker)] wherein this Court has held that interest underSection 234D can be levied only with effect from 1[st] June,2003. In the light of the above, the questions of law have tobe answered against the Revenue and in favour of theassessee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC Sd/- JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE