Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Madanlal Engineernig Ltd on 20 June, 2008
IN THE HIGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA1:OT9.!?'g>
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY or arms «. A
PRESENT
THE HOBFBLE nm..ms'r1c1«: V.Gi3PA'.1'..eA_
AND
THE HQNBLE 3n2.JUs'rz§§'E»1a.B".r€A1I=:
INCOME mx AP_2;%_Lw§t¢.%'395%";%"F2oo3«
c/w.rm ciao;/g;ot1:~;'s; %
BETWEEN: '
3. The COII}II1iS$iOf1€I'¥féf_w_II1C{)IIi<E§--TE§19£ if. '
C'3.R.Bui1ding=i' L -
Queens Road 1I;__ 3 = V *
Bangaieref' 568 301.
2. Tbs A33ty'iZ'»cInm'is.siox:erT'c«f_
Income % ' .. V
Campany Cir{:le_--'-- 4(4)
C.R.Bu_§_ildirag ' ~
" 'Quee:1S:'R:§>.aci'v~. A.
-Ba;11'ga10:*(:.~_ ....Appe1lants
,. T -- % - A. Common in both the
* Appeals
__ (By.S1*; K.V.Arav1nd, Adv. far
4"' Sari M."V. Seshachaia, Sig. Counsel)
gS.Mad3{t.1ia1 Engineering Ltd,
. ..5/E:*72;":~Ph3.S(3
§ : 'Peaényraindustfiai Estate
' 1 . . _ _VBa;r.1g'éé;10r-3 58. ....Rc~3spondent
Common in both the":
appeals.
(Service held sufficicnt: in respect at' Respondent)
\\/ Se<:.2.'34B hokiizlg that they are not mandatory, challenged by framing the following questions ef iaw in both the appeals urgng the in support of the same and prayed' '€c)* common order by answeI'ing%the q11e*:~.%ti_oi':.sjs. in fé;grQur'~ef'~:,' ' the Revenue.
3. The substantial queetieia Cf' 3:--.1"v'»*. [£':fa5;:ned in both these appeals is same. whief-zis.eXt:*ae'1;eéiheffeeijizder:
"Whe§fh--er f _fi1€ _'F:fib1_1_i1éil was eerrect heL:iii:g'«. may assesses was not liable ire pay in£etfestV,.?under Sec. 23'4AL 'eff fthe _ ' enjid SecC234E of the Act, Wherlihe ;;>Ij0viSior:s- were held to be man:ietorfy'V?i§y_th.iS"».H::u:1'i:)1e Court as well aetixat er t;hC"If"IQI}'bl€ Supreme Court_ by " i;s.1t<)" consideration _ i.I're1;evai1t anfi a.ilI1I]Zié,1¥L6I'i€2} facts and ' ' ~_c1r'v:::Li;t3:1$§ax1ees tegrant relief in favour ,0f_ the Vassevssee and consequently L 1'eeorded_ pewerse findlnge"
4. V1.3 of the aforesaid substantia} ef "law, the leazfled counsel for the revenue submits that the concurrent fnciing of fact feeerded by the CIT»-Appea1~A is set aside by the ignoring the fact that the aesessee submiited re€ur1"1e on 2.i.199O which has been accepted by me \\u/ Revenue under Sec. 243(3) of tilt: Act Witheuiz suimstaiatiating the said contention by the assesses.
5. The Tribunal committed an ermr in holéigg retmrn filed by the assesses on 20.1.};9€39£} is' by the revenue under Sec. 143T(}.~}. ~:)i't}"1'¥c':
erroneaus f1.I'1ciiI1g as the @1116 is materiai iegal evidence or: Vi;-;i1_"%§ '4 hand, returrz was submittzjd to the notice issued shali be assessad f0_r_ TDS amount deducted b£g:._Adi34a:§1;{5§;i;q:g ffiedtictiozis Claimed by the assesses Eiffiémfom, he was raquired .sj2b17£1_it:«::1"%=;1§12«:*:f1s V.f'c}1*VV::V19:f1::subn1ission of the same and as:s.=§s3:na2nt--V1_3:1a.c§:>: "pursuant to the return submitted by him on the b'a.$%:is 'T>of Show-cause natice issued by the _ =..re4v'&nue derfvssv interest payable on the inceme which was brought far tax for the assessment year in Tj'q_:,_ié7$ti€3n is not ixhailerzged by the assesses. Only the 4: {>f irxtemst "tmder Sec.234A is challenged and .fCu1'ther levy of interest for non-«payment of advance tax as required under Sec.234 of 6? Act as the inceme of 'e+.eoMMiee$%1om4::é 3ettt 'to? INCOME TAX ---- vs~ ANJUM
-4.«'.Ey§'..If§;-{?:HASV£?.ef§LA & OTHERS 1'epei3rted in 252 ITR (2001) V 1*el_e§;ant portion of the same reaés thus:5
the assessee brought to tax was beyond Rs.5,000/~ and therefore, the assesses is iiable to pay interest on tax amount as provided under the above provieigoroe the Act, the findixlgs recorded in {he A 3 order by the Tribunal though .
payment of tax due to the emougrfaof 12,7§"V1 the assessment year 1989-90 the aseeesitient year 199991 Rs.:2o,24,»4778]g' fifherefore, the interest Ieviedjtlhe upon the Tax amount pa:$e1:§_e. by the con1mi3sion.er""<;f. I}r1e01§fi.:e' is based on the aseessmentvtortdert tltie Assessing Authority and the sameie"£r1V_'<;o1f1:'7o:{i1';:ti¥:§i;with Sec.234-A and 234-- of. .the'-':tjf;§et:»_'--s2:srI:i(j;i1 pfovisions of the Act are held to be geggnstittitionai Beach in the case of _§ "Nextly, the Commission has elaborately discussed the object": of iz1t;£'0ductio1':: of Chapter XIX~A in the Act, the history behind the inwoduction and schematic rationalisation of the provisions of Chapter )<IIX---A brought about through the \w/ interest is leviabie for I1<>x1-«fzling of return. Further, the assesssee is liable to submit :'ei:2_zrr:, for nan-pay111ant of advance tax, the assessee is liable to pay the " on the tax payable after cieterxnixlatian of the 'aha assessaee by the I3epartn1cm:. Thefafafa; :3:.f;¢; _ counsel fer the Revenue submi?;,$ t:}:::at._ E216 a_f*§§1=e*§§aid " decision applies to the C338 hand. I393" corzsideratioll sf statuta1j;'.'g3so not cha11€:1':g°:1g the the assessee which? paid the tax, but the aaaésseaai levy of interest under afion the tax amomlt payable §t:_:>_v Re.a§en'aa_:»' "adntendiI1g t}:1a{ findings ;f§éét>:idec3'L_: 1171:: iiiip1:~giiad comnwn Judgment at Tribunal without adverting to the ' V' a'*n._m1evaf1i:,__factuaIajggaogsitien nameiy the retums submitted
-.[.['jp1:r'sx,:ar1t {Q _Ati1he notica issued ta the assessee under the Act and andisputedly not paid the tax as it was brought to tax for more than F€s;.5,000/~ therefore, the learned counsei sabmits that "me substantial question of law framed in this Appeal \\W/ 8 wouid certainty arise for our cozisideration and therefore the learned eozmsei for the Revenue has req'L:ested Court ts answer the same in favour of revenue.
6. With reference to the above "it submissions made by the iearneé the revenue, we have earefully eieieiined and reasons recorded at to _4.5H'in"Jthe impugned common JA1§idgfB1'§IltV:1_)§lV answer the substantial Ziavfi Appeal. It is an has submitted returns j issued to it under Sec.14'7 of the assessee and has been assessed fox; oi' tax of Rs. 17,12,751/~ for as year 1939-90 and Rs.2(},24,478/~ for the ".1990-91 therefore, he was required .submi't under Sec.139 of the IT Act. Norr- _ jsubzxiission of returns tit! the notice is serveci upon him 's.ttra<:1:s provisions of Sec.234A payment of V ik%i:n:efrest on the income tax payable to the Department the aforesaid provisions and he has been brought to tax and the iiability is Rs.5,()0{}/~ and 9 therefore the aseessee was required to pay advance Tax to the {Department and that has not been paid, therefere-.._ _T~.._V the aseeseee is liable to pay interest as pr0vided__--iii;idef.i'L:'~-- Se<:.234B of the Act. Nair-remittance pi'. abev¢e"a(i";§'a_.*€ee tax ameunt further warranted for _._ei'fi.ce1~* to levy the tax under Sec.:234S iflfle Am ametmt payable to the "I'1}ereflfe1'~e, assessment order regardinga anti 234-8 of the is the fi.}i'S§ appefiaee reasons. The same is erxjefieeeeig 'bjf 'hfeeeréing the finding comaxy laid dewn by the Cenefitutierzal Apex Court referred to Ieaned counsel for the Revenue hae' in support of the above legal AA""eubmisshf_:>ns_v~Le.iansWer the question ef law flamed in Therefore, the submission made by the "._' "lea:'f1e§i*»-eeuxlsel for the Revenue is Well founded and must be aeeepted. and we are required to aaswei'
- ,__AA ff1e'VSubetantia} question ef vom of the Revenue. 10 Accordingly, We anawer the same in favour of the Revenue.
7. ACCOI'diI1g1y', the appeals are a1}O§&T(§§:;~--::.T'I}:*6VV " ' ixnpugned order is set aside.
Sk/¥:)py2808- % 5!_JI_1dge