Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Whether The Reporters Of The Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment?The Judgment?

ITA No. 379 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 379 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.12.2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Smt. Sushila Rani ...Respondent. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay of 12 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “G”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred toas “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 3230/DEL/2010, for the assessment year2007-08, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether on facts and in the circumstances, theLd. ITAT was right in law in upholding the orderof CIT(A) in deleting interest u/s 234A of theIncome Tax Act and to restrict the levy ofLd. ITAT was right in law in upholding the orderof CIT(A) in deleting interest u/s 234A of theIncome Tax Act and to restrict the levy of 2. 3. interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act chargedby the Assessing Officer even though in thecharging of interest u/s 234A and 234B ismandatory in nature and is contrary to thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & others(2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it is held thatSections 234A and 234B are independentprovisions of the Income Tax Act and ifconditions for attracting these provisions existthe Assessing Officer shall have to levy thesame as held that the levy of interest u/s 234Aand 234B is mandatory in nature? Whether on facts and in the circumstances, theLd. ITAT was right in law in upholding the orderof CIT(A) who without prejudice to the abovehad no jurisdiction u/s 246 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 to entertain and decide an appealagainst orders u/ss 234A, 234B and 234C;more so, when the returned income wasaccepted u/s 143(3) and there was nogrievance against the order and the separateITNS 150 was prepared to calculate tax andinterest and signed by the Assessing Officer?Whether on facts and in the circumstances, theLd. ITAT was right in law in upholding the orderof CIT(A) in passing a perverse order without mandate in the case where the assessee couldhave filed a petition u/s 154 of the Income TaxAct to the Assessing Officer instead of filing anappeal before the CIT(A), which does not lie?Whether on the facts and in circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of CIT(A) wherein, havingno regards to the expressions used in Section45 and Section 48 for computation of long termcapital gain arising for accruing on transfer ofcapital, the CIT(A) held that it was a conditionalsale with sales considerations not fully receivedin the F.Y. 2006-07 and, therefore, liability u/s234A, u/s 234B and u/s 234C did not arise.The order of the CIT(A) and that of ITATupholding the order of CIT(A) are perverseinasmuch as Sections 45 and 48 do notrecognize conditional sale for computation ofcapital gains, rather, that capital gains have tobe computed on considerations received oraccruing? 2.Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of theinstant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is anagriculturist and had filed the return of income on 10.10.2007 for theassessment year 2007-08 declaring a total income of ` 9,71,54,990/-including long term capital gain of ` 9,69,29,440/- with agriculturalincome of ` 62,460/- under Section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer vide orderdated 8.10.2009 (Annexure A-I) framed regular assessment underSection 143(3) of the Act by accepting the returned income of theassessee. As a result thereof, ITNS 150 of the Act was prepared and ademand of ` 4,12,275/- was raised due to short levy of interest underSections 234A and 234B of the Act. Feeling aggrieved against thecharging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act,the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated29.4.2010 (Annexure A-II) deleted the interest amounting to ` 2,17,219/-charged under Section 234A of the Act and ` 2,17,319/- under Section234C of the Act and restricted the interest charged under Section 234Bof the Act. Being dissatisfied with the order, Annexure A-II, the revenuefiled an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 24.12.2014(Annexure A-III) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed theappeal. This gave rise to the revenue to approach this Court by way ofinstant appeal. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the firstappeal under Section 246 of the Act was not maintainable against thechargeability of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Actparticularly when the returned income was accepted under Section 143(3) of the Act and there was no grievance against the order and theseparate ITNS 150 was prepared to calculate tax and interest. It wasfurther urged that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were not justified indeleting the interest under Sections 234A and 234C of the Act and inrestricting the interest charged under Section 234B of the Act. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. ITA No. 379 of 2015 6.In this appeal, two issues arise for consideration of thisCourt, namely, (i) Whether the CIT(A) was well within his jurisdiction toentertain the first appeal under Section 246 of the Act against thechargeability of interest by the Assessing Officer under Sections 234A,234B and 234C of the Act; and (ii) Whether the CIT(A) and the Tribunalwere justified in deleting the interest under Sections 234A and 234C ofthe Act and in restricting the interest charged under Section 234B of theAct. 7.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in ITA No.253 of 2015 [Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v.Shri Krishan Gopal (HUF)] decided on 15.9.2015 adjudicated both theissues, as noticed above, against the revenue holding that an appealcould be filed against the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and234C of the Act before the CIT(A) as an appeal was maintainable.Further, under similar circumstances, it was recorded that the CIT(A)and the Tribunal were justified in deleting the interest under Sections234A and 234C of the Act and in restricting the interest charged underSection 234B of the Act. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed. 8.In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 11, 2015gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE