Thus, This Court Has To Consider The Legality Of The Orderpassed In Para v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [(2003) 259 Itr 449 (Sc)]And Cit Vs. Damani Brothers [(2003) 259 Itr 475 (Sc)], Interestunder Section 234B Has To Be Charged Up To The D

Dated: 08.09.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMWP.Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004 1. M/s.Mayura Radio & Cycle MartRep. By its Managing Partner,585, Trichy Road, Singanallur,Coimbatore... Petitioner in WP No.25871/042. Smt.S.Vasanthakumari,Proprietress Mayura Corporation,Rep. By Power of Attorney,Sri.P.Sampath Kumar,586, Trichy Road, Singanallur,Coimbatore... Petitioner in WP No.25872/043. Smt.S.Vijayalakshmi,Proprietress Vasantha Agencies,587, Trichy Road, Singanallur,Coimbatore... Petitioner in WP No.25873/04 Vs1. The Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench,488-489, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 035. 2. The Union of India Rep. By The Chairman,Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax I,Coimbatore. 4. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-III (3),Coimbatore... Respondents in all WPs. PRAYER in WP No.25871 of 2004: This Writ Petition is filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance ofWrit of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondentIncome Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in itsfile Settlement Applications Nos.21/CBE/27/96-IT and 21/CBE/61/96-IT and quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2004. PRAYER in WP No.25872 of 2004: This Writ Petition is filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance ofWrit of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondentIncome Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in itsfile Settlement Applications Nos.21/CBE/28/96-IT and 21/CBE/62/96-https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/IT and quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2004. PRAYER in WP No.25873 of 2004: This Writ Petition is filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance ofWrit of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondentIncome Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in itsfile Settlement Applications Nos.21/CBE/29/96-IT and 21/CBE/63/96-IT and quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2004. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumarin all WPs.For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas (for R2 to R4)in all WPs. Sr. Standing Counsel for Income TaxC O M M O N O R D E R All these writ petitions are filed challenging the orderspassed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench,Chennai dated 28.05.2004. 2. The petitioners' firm deals in consumer durables likemixies, grinders, refrigerators, television, washing machines,steel and wooden furnitures and other household articles.Admittedly, the petitioners filed applications under Section 245Cof the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Settlement Commission.Applications were admitted under Section 245(D)(1) of the Act andadjudicated. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioners in a nut shell isthat the order passed by the Settlement Commission with referenceto para No.2 alone is objectionable. As far as para No.1 of theorder, the petitioners have no serious dispute and they have notraised any grievance. 4. Thus, this Court has to consider the legality of the orderpassed in para No.2 by the Settlement Commission. Para No.2 of theorder states that following the decision of the Apex Court in thecase of CIT Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [(2003) 259 ITR 449 (SC)]and CIT Vs. Damani Brothers [(2003) 259 ITR 475 (SC)], interestunder Section 234B has to be charged up to the date of the orderunder Section 245(D)(4) i.e. 25.03.1999. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submissionthat as per the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia, the charging of interest under Section 234B up to the dateof the order passed under Section 245(D)(4), is improper and is inviolation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court of India. 4. Thus, this Court has to consider the legality of the orderpassed in para No.2 by the Settlement Commission. Para No.2 of theorder states that following the decision of the Apex Court in thecase of CIT Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [(2003) 259 ITR 449 (SC)]and CIT Vs. Damani Brothers [(2003) 259 ITR 475 (SC)], interestunder Section 234B has to be charged up to the date of the orderunder Section 245(D)(4) i.e. 25.03.1999. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submissionthat as per the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia, the charging of interest under Section 234B up to the dateof the order passed under Section 245(D)(4), is improper and is inviolation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court of India. 6. In this context, the learned senior standing counseldisputed the said contention by stating that no doubt, the amountof interest is to be calculated up to the date on which the Section245(D)(1) order is passed, however, the interest should be chargedon the amount determined in the order passed under Section 245(D)(4) of the Income Tax Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that theHon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered a similar issue inW.A.Nos.2208 & 2209 of 2021 and an order was passed on 06.09.2021holding that the amount of interest under Section 234B is to becharged up to the date of the order passed under Section 245(D)(1)on the amount determined in the order passed under Section 245(D)(4) of the Income Tax Act. 8. In view of the said submission, the case of the petitionersis also to be considered with reference to the principles laid downby the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2208 and 2209of 2021 dated 06.09.2021, with reference to the charging ofinterest under Section 234(B) of the Income Tax Act. 9. Accordingly, the competent Assessing Officer is directed tocompute the amount payable by the petitioners and communicate thesame as expeditiously as possible enabling the petitioners to paythe tax without causing any further delay. 10. With the above direction, all these writ petitions standdisposed of. No Costs. ars -Sd/-Assistant Registrar To TRUE COPYSub-Assistant Registrar 1. The Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench,488-489, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 035.2. The Chairman,Union of India Central Board of Direct Taxes,North Block, New Delhi.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax I,Coimbatore.4. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-III (3),Coimbatore.+3 CCs to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel(Income Tax)SR.No.45332/2021 WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004 SML(CO)GS(21/10/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/