The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amritsar v. M/S. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chheharta,Amritsar

ITR No. 126 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITR No. 126 of 1990Date of decision. 17.12.2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus M/s. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chheharta,Amritsar .....Respondent CORAMHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Ms. Nareender. P. K. Singh, Senior StandingCounsel for revenue. Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocatefor the assessee. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral ) This reference has been made by the Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar arising out of its order dated 30.1.1987 for the assessment year1982-83 ITA No.522/ASR/1986 proposing to raise following substantialquestions of law; “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in law in confirming the order of theCommissioner of income-tax ( Appeals), Amritsar allowingdepreciation on Machinery @ 15% in respect of all the divisionsexcept gases division ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) cancelling the interestcharged u/s 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” We have dealt with question no.1 in case of assessee byseparate order passed today in ITR No. 49 and 50 of 1990 and have left the question no.1 open. For the same reasons question no.1 is left open. As regards question no.2, we find that the Tribunal setaside the levy of interest only on the ground that opportunity of hearingwas not given to the assessee. It is not disputed that the said provision ismandatory and interest is in the nature of compensation and is leviable ifadvance tax paid was less than 75% of the assessed tax. Accordingly we answer question no.2 in favour of therevenue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )Judge December 17, 2008mamta ( L. N. Mittal ) Judge