Madras High Court
M/S.Mayura Radio & Cycle Mart vs The Income Tax Settlement ... on 8 September, 2021
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
1. M/s.Mayura Radio & Cycle Mart
Rep. By its Managing Partner,
585, Trichy Road, Singanallur,
Coimbatore. .. Petitioner in WP No.25871/04
2. Smt.S.Vasanthakumari,
Proprietress Mayura Corporation,
Rep. By Power of Attorney,
Sri.P.Sampath Kumar,
586, Trichy Road, Singanallur,
Coimbatore. .. Petitioner in WP No.25872/04
3. Smt.S.Vijayalakshmi,
Proprietress Vasantha Agencies,
587, Trichy Road, Singanallur,
Coimbatore. .. Petitioner in WP No.25873/04
Vs
1. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
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 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent Income Tax
Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in its file 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 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent Income Tax
Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in its file Settlement
Applications Nos.21/CBE/28/96-IT and 21/CBE/62/96-IT and quash the
impugned order dated 28.05.2004.
PRAYER in WP No.25873 of 2004: This Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent Income Tax
Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai in its file 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.Kumar
in all WPs.
For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas (for R2 to R4)
in all WPs. Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax
COMMON ORDER
All these writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by
the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai
dated 28.05.2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
2. The petitioners' firm deals in consumer durables like mixies,
grinders, refrigerators, television, washing machines, steel and wooden
furnitures and other household articles. Admittedly, the petitioners filed
applications under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the
Settlement Commission. Applications were admitted under Section
245(D)(1) of the Act and adjudicated.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioners in a nut shell is that the
order passed by the Settlement Commission with reference to para No.2
alone is objectionable. As far as para No.1 of the order, the petitioners
have no serious dispute and they have not raised any grievance.
4. Thus, this Court has to consider the legality of the order passed
in para No.2 by the Settlement Commission. Para No.2 of the order
states that following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT
Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [(2003) 259 ITR 449 (SC)] and CIT Vs.
Damani Brothers [(2003) 259 ITR 475 (SC)], interest under Section
234B has to be charged up to the date of the order under Section
245(D)(4) i.e. 25.03.1999.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that as
per the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
charging of interest under Section 234B up to the date of the order
passed under Section 245(D)(4), is improper and is in violation of the
principles laid down by the Apex Court of India.
6. In this context, the learned senior standing counsel disputed the
said contention by stating that no doubt, the amount of interest is to be
calculated up to the date on which the Section 245(D)(1) order is passed,
however, the interest should be charged on the amount determined in the
order passed under Section 245(D)(4) of the Income Tax Act.
7. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court considered a similar issue in W.A.Nos.2208
& 2209 of 2021 and an order was passed on 06.09.2021 holding that the
amount of interest under Section 234B is to be charged 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
8. In view of the said submission, the case of the petitioners is also
to be considered with reference to the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2208 and 2209 of 2021
dated 06.09.2021, with reference to the charging of interest under
Section 234(B) of the Income Tax Act.
9. Accordingly, the competent Assessing Officer is directed to
compute the amount payable by the petitioners and communicate the
same as expeditiously as possible enabling the petitioners to pay the tax
without causing any further delay.
10. With the above direction, all these writ petitions stand disposed
of. No Costs.
08.09.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
ars
To
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.
WP Nos.25871 to 25873 of 2004
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
