Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-23 v. Ikg Associates

Yugandhara Patil 5-ITXA-9-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2018 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-23 VersusIkg Associates ...Appellant ...Respondent ****** Mr. Suresh Kumar for AppellantMr. Rahul Sarda i/ b Mr. Sameer Dalal for Respondent.****** CORAM: K.R.SHRIRAM & M.M.SATHAYE JJ. P.C. :- DATE : 14[th] JUNE 2023 1.The following substantial questions of law are proposed. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 6.1Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the ITAT is justified in setting aside the ordersunder Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating thatwhere two views are possible it cannot be treated a mistakeapparent from record whereas initially it was the assessee itselfwho had filed an application under Section 154 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 on the issue of interest under Section 234C ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 not being payable ? 6.2Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, ITAT was correct in holding that there was notchargeability of interest under Section 234C of the Income TaxAct, 1961 when assessee’s case does not fall under any of theexceptions laid out under the said provisions of the Act andwhen in fact assessee had income from business and professionand method of accounting was mercantile? In this case, after the assessee’s returns of Income was 1 /2 Yugandhara Patil 5-ITXA-9-2018.docscrutinised and order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) was passed, assessee filed application under Section154 of the Act for rectification. That application was allowed. Twoyears later, without giving any notice to the assessee, the rectificationwhich was allowed earlier was reversed and interest under Section234C of the Act was imposed. The assessee did not challenge theaddition but challenged the working of interest under Section 234Cof the Act. The Tribunal has come to a factual finding that order isnot sustainable in the eyes of law on account of non issuance ofnotice with regard to the addition under Section 234C of the Act. 3.In addition, the Tribunal has also gone into merits of thematter and has come to the conclusion that imposing of interestunder Section 234C of the Act itself was not correct. Therefore, inour view, no substantial question of law arise. Appeal dismissed. [M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [K.R.SHRIRAM, J.] 2 /2