Ramachandran Nair,J v. C.n.ramachandran Nair)Judge.judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 ITA.No. 3 of 2008() ------------------- ITA.452/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ ESCAPADE RESORTS (P) LTD., CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, ALONG WITH OP NO. 23222 OF 2002 ITA NO. 4 OF 2008 ITA NO. 5 OF 2008 ITA NO. 6 OF 2008 AND 97/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE ITA NO. 4 OF 2008 ITA NO. 5 OF 2008 ITA NO. 6 OF 2008 AND 97/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.-------------------------------------------------I.T. Appeal Nos. 3 to 6 and 97 OF 2008&O.P. No. 23222 of 2002 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised in the connected I. T. Appeals filed by theRevenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling levy anddemand of interest on non-payment/short payment/delayed payment ofadvance tax under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.Following the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which wasconfirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT V. KWALITY BISCUITSLTD., (2006) 284 I.T.R. 434 (SC), this Court in CIT V. NILGIRI TEAESTATE LTD., (2009) 312 I.T.R. 161 held that the provisions ofadvance tax contained in Chapter XVII are not applicable to taxpayable on book profit under Section 115J of the Act. Even thoughsenior counsel for the Revenue contended that for the relevant yearsinvolved in these case by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 115JA, advance tax is payable, we are still not inclined to accept the contentionbecause substantially there is no difference between Section 115J andSection 115JA of the I.T. Act. Moreover, provision on payment ofadvance tax on current income remains unaltered inspite ofintroduction of tax on book profit for the various years providedthrough different provisions. We therefore follow our above referreddecision and dismiss the departmental appeals. 2. Even though petitioner in O.P.No. 23222 of 2002 paidadvance tax based on orders issued by the Officer, the position is thesame because interest demanded is on advance tax payable based onincome determined under Section 115J of the Act. We therefore allowthe Writ Petition also quashing the order of the Commissioner and thatof the Officer demanding interest under Sections 234B and 234C of theI. T. Act. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk