Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1114 (PAT)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Umesh Prasad Singh

2012-08-13

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, VIKASH JAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard the parties in respect of limitation petition seeking condonation of one day delay in preferring these appeals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. The limitation petitions are allowed. 2. All these appeals have been heard together as they relate to same parties and involve common questions of law. The appellant in all these appeals is Department of Income Tax and the respondent is the assessee either in individual or H.U.F. capacity. Learned counsel for the Department has advanced common submissions for deciding whether these appeals involve substantial questions of law or not. According to the submissions advanced, the substantial question of law arising from the impugned order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna is :- whether interest under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax Act is to be charged in the given situation mandatorily without requiring specific order of the assessing officer for charging of interest. 3. In support of his submission and stand learned counsel for the Department took us through the common order under appeal, particularly paragraph 7.9 of that order wherein the issue relating to interest under the aforesaid provisions of the Income Tax Act has been considered. 4. The discussions made by the Tribunal in paragraph 7.9 of the judgment under appeal discloses that there was no issue whether the relevant provisions create a mandatory obligation to pay interest without requirement of any specific order by the assessing officer. The Tribunal considered the issue relating to interest in an entirely different perspective. The discussions show that in the earlier and original round of proceeding, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had directed to delete interest charged under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act on the ground that there was no direction in the assessment order for charging of interest, nor details of the interest so charged was available in the demand notice/notices. The Tribunal further noticed that part of the order of the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) was not assailed by the department when it preferred appeal before the Tribunal in the first round. The Tribunal further noticed that part of the order of the learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) was not assailed by the department when it preferred appeal before the Tribunal in the first round. The learned Tribunal, no doubt passed an order whereby the assessing officer was required to consider a limited issue as to whether a particular property was acquired from HUF fund or individual fund, but no interference was made by the Tribunal with the order of the learned CIT (Appeal) directing to delete the interest charged under sections 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has held that non-chargeability of interest had acquired finality in the first round of proceeding itself. 5. On going through the relevant orders passed by the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) and the Tribunal in the original round of proceeding it is evident that the Tribunal did not interfere with the order of C.I.T. (Appeal) in respect of deletion of interest charged under the relevant provisions of the Act and the remand was a limited one not relating to chargeability of the interest. In such a situation the substantial questions of law advanced by learned counsel for the Department does not arise in these appeals. The issue decided by the Tribunal is quite different and there can be no scope to take a different view from what has been taken by the Tribunal in view of earlier order passed by C. I. T.( Appeal) and the Tribunal which have already attained finality. 6. We find that the Department is actually aggrieved by the views taken by the C.I.T. ( Appeal ) and the Tribunal in the original and first round of proceeding and the subsequent order of C.I.T. and the Tribunal cannot be faulted if the orders passed earlier were not challenged, as is the situation in the present case. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any substantial question of law involved in these appeals so as to require consideration by this Court. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.