Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xvi vs Mr. Robert Michael Arthey C/O ... on 23 December, 2011
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 459 of 2008
ITA 337 of 2007
ITA 338 of 2007
ITA 131 of 2009
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:22.7.2011
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:23.12.2011
(1) ITA 459 of 2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
Versus
MR. ROBERT MICHAEL ARTHEY
C/o PRICEWATERHOUSE
COOPERS (P) LTD. ..RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate.
(2) ITA 337 OF 2007
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
Versus
MR.LESTNER GARNETT . ..RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate.
(3) ITA 338 OF 2007
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
Versus
MR.LESTNER GARNETT . ..RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate.
(4) ITA 131 OF 2009
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI ..... APPELLANT
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
Versus
MR. VIJAY GOPAL JINDAL . ..RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.Sudeep Bhandari, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
A.K.SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE:
ITA No. 459 of 2008
1. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and
other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section
234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also.
2 Vide separate order passed today, the issue is decided in favour of
the assessee.
3. That apart, we find that the tax effect in this appeal is ` 4,79,170/-
and in view of the latest guidelines of the CBDT, the appeal is otherwise
not entertainable when we find that the issue does not have cascading
effect.
4. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest was charged
under the aforesaid provision by the Assessing Officer on the ground
that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the CIT (A)
and the order of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT holding that
the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that
his entire income was subject to tax at source.
5. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated
[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495.
6. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.
ITA No. 337/2007 & ITA 338/2007
7. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and
other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section
234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also.
8. Vide separate order passed today, the issue is decided in favour of
the assessee.
9. That apart, we find that the tax effect in this appeal is much less
than ` 4 lacs and in view of the latest guidelines of the CBDT, the
appeal is otherwise not entertainable when we find that the issue does
not have cascading effect.
10. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest was charged
under the aforesaid provision by the Assessing Officer on the ground
that advance tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the ITAT
holding that the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax in view of
the fact that his entire income was subject to tax at source.
11. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated
[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495.
12. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals which
are accordingly dismissed.
ITA No. 131/2009
13. Order in this appeal was reserved alongwith ITA 504/2007 and
other connected matters since issue of charging of interest under Section
234-B of the Income-Tax Act had arisen in those appeals also.
14. It would be worthwhile to mention that the interest of ` 2,90,403/-
and `3,56,637/- respectively was charged under Section 234-B & C of
the Income-Tax Act by the Assessing Officer on the ground that advance
tax was not paid. This order was set aside by the CIT (A) and the order
of the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the ITAT holding that the assessee
had no liability to pay advance tax in view of the fact that his entire
income was subject to tax at source.
15. This issue also stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacab Civil Incorporated
[2010] 194 TAXMAN 495.
16. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(REVA KHETRAPAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 23, 2011
skb
