Itxa/1449/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) - Ii v. Smt. Deepika Mehta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1449 OF 2012 … Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II ...Appellant v/s. Smt.Deepika Mehta ...Respondent … Mr.A.R.Malhotra with Mr.N.A.Kazi for the Appellant.Mr.Pankaj R. Toprani for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 31 OCTOBER 2014 P.C.: This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.3415 of 2011. The Assessment Year is 2002-03. We are of the opinion that from the order dated 9[th] March 2012 following substantial questions of law arises for determination and consideration: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that interest u/s 234A and 234B is not chargeable in the case of Assessee being a notified person under Special Court Act, 1992 without appreciating that the said Act has not ruled that the provisions of sections 234A and 234B are not applicable to the notified persons or they are exempted from the liability of payment of interest under these provisions of the Income Tax Act?the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that interest u/s 234A and 234B is not chargeable in the case of Assessee being a notified person under Special Court Act, 1992 without appreciating that the said Act has not ruled that the provisions of sections 234A and 234B are not applicable to the notified persons or they are exempted from the liability of payment of interest under these provisions of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessee being a notified person under the Special (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessee being a notified person under the Special (Trial of Offences relating to Transaction in itxa-1449-12.doc Securities) Act, 1992 is not liable to pay interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act ignoring the legal sanctity of law that interest chargeable under these provisions is not only consequential but is mandatory in nature ? 2.By consent of Advocates, we have taken up this Appeal for hearing and final disposal. 3.We are of the view that, in the light of the agreed position and particularly on facts, the questions of which law are substantial and they are identical to those involved in Income Tax Appeal No.3334 of 2010, Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-II, Mumbai v/s. Divine Holdings Pvt.Ltd., decided on 7[th] March 2012. 4.In terms of this judgment and nothing contrary being brought on record by the Assessee, this Appeal by the Revenue succeeds. We need not elaborate our reasons. We are following and applying the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. For the reasons stated therein, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. There will be no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)