Delhi High Court
Cit vs Inchcape India (P) Ltd. on 20 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 124 TAXMAN 744 Delhi
ORDER
This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated 28-5-2001, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi in IT Appeal No. 4015 (Delhi) of 1999, pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97.
2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under section 234B of the Act, on the ground that before levying the said interest, there was no application of mind on the part of the assessing officer, inasmuch as, while completing assessment he had not made any order for charging the interest. While holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 44 (Pat), wherein it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest.
2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under section 234B of the Act, on the ground that before levying the said interest, there was no application of mind on the part of the assessing officer, inasmuch as, while completing assessment he had not made any order for charging the interest. While holding so, the Tribunal has relied on the judgments of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 44 (Pat), wherein it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest.
3. In view of the fact that both the said decisions have since been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) no substantial question of law survives for our consideration. Admittedly in the present case, there was no order for charging of interest under section 234B of the Act in the assessment order.
3. In view of the fact that both the said decisions have since been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) no substantial question of law survives for our consideration. Admittedly in the present case, there was no order for charging of interest under section 234B of the Act in the assessment order.
4. It may also be noted that a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Pat), relying on decisions of the Apex Court in Ranchi Club Ltd.'s case (supra), has reiterated the aforesaid view expressed in Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex's case (supra). It has been held that in the absence of any specific order of the assessing authority, interest could not be charged and recovered from the assessed.
4. It may also be noted that a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Pat), relying on decisions of the Apex Court in Ranchi Club Ltd.'s case (supra), has reiterated the aforesaid view expressed in Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex's case (supra). It has been held that in the absence of any specific order of the assessing authority, interest could not be charged and recovered from the assessed.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
