Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Arvind Fashions Limited on 12 April, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12*" DAY OF APRIL, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. .I\/IANJUNATIWI
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHl\:IA' I
I.T.A.N0.3O74[20CI§
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMIETAX
c.R. BUILDING '
QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE 1Nc0MEV'I*A>§._(j'}?FKi':5:R I. "
WARD 19v{--;1*;"~ 3. --
I3ANGAI.a_oRE: _
_ _ API>I~:I,LAN'IS
(By Sré. K.V.ARAV1ND Vv"SE:SIIAcHAI.,A, ADVOCATEJ)
" .....
2. I\«I,ZS"ARvI_I\ID :vFASI<II0NS LIMITED
12. B0Iv;MA.sA_NDDA INDUSTRIAL AREA
HOSUR ROPIIT).
BAI\:AI_,ORE~ _
... RESPONDENT
'1._'_'{BySI-2 M'.I¥éI~I_<H;I,I~:SI-I RAG FOR M/S INDUS LAW, ADVOCATE3) Y' T}~llS I.'l'.A ES FILED U/S.260«A OF l.'I'.AC'l'. 1961. ARISENG OUT OF ORDER DATED 1.9A04~2005 PASSED IN ITA i\iO.1432/BAi%E_G;'2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0:2, PRAYING 'i'HA1"fHIS.'liCii\illi3,LE COURT MAY BE PLEJASED TO: I. FORMULATE QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED TPIEREEN AND ETC. THIS I.T.A COMING ON EOR*"*';AIEEAR.1N0.l'"iri'}_11g..i'oAy,i K.L.MANJUNA:rH J, DELIVERED TH E1,Eo1,1,o?NiNG;_' JUDGMEN$<' '-» The Revenue has come up ai3p.eal-
by the order passed by the Inc.o'rraelE_:'TaX_Ap1aeli'ate"l4Triburaal, Bangalore in HA No.1432'/eBa§::g:7200:2§"Seated 19.04.2005 raising the following: law:
i) ;A;l5'p.elll'a__te. Authorities were correct in hoidinlg that l:a"ESleSsee is not liable to pay interest under §t)i(iA} of the Act for delayed ;:*.e£1ni,etta11ele'o~i7----TDS amount during the grace period of ~:rio--11thS in View of Rule 30 of the India Tax Rules.
ii). Assessing Officer was Correct in holding V tat the aSSeSsee is not entitled for grace period while A a computing interest under Section 201[iA) of the Act in View of the Board Circular dated 21.7.1966.
(V
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the
3. The Assessee for the assessment remitted the TDS amount deductedlwblyd it7;_tcr Government Account on 19.06.2001 instead of »'d.e.i§os1tir1gTg0"the»wr same on or before 31.03.2001 asV"r:eq11iredV"under Sectiori 195 of the Income Tax Act. ijfficer interest under Section 20l[lA] for treating the respondent "a,.s :7.a order of the Assessing questioned by the Assessee .betolre the Commissioner of income by extending Rule 30 of "Income Rules considering the grace period :.gitaiite~d»V0li~c1i'ei7vtoft-he Assessee by his order dated 14.08.2002. Being Vaggrie"r?"ed_' same, the Revenue filed an appeal before Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has the appeal concurring with the views of the Cornniissiioner of income Tax (Appeals). (V. Assessee is to enable the Assessee to reeonctile the aeeourits and remit the amount to the i)epart.n'1em. Ii" the AssesseeV.h.als._V failed to utilise the grace period granted to it. it contend that it would be liable to pay interest ll payment after excluding grace period. £llA;4the"gi'aee_lpleiiedfis not utilised by the Assessee to 'lt1_faru1sfei"v~ to Revenue, it goes without saying thAa.t.l:ihe'~Assessee_being a defaulter is liable to pay iriteresti elalieulaeted from Isl April of the relevant ass.ess:ne:_it
7. Therefore Vxzeig/11T'{: of' the question of law framed here are to be a1'is}'We1'edl'--in""fav0ur of the Revenue and against the Assesseel l10ldingA._tl1att' the Assessee cannot claim theigraee p;f1*l£7O(;l__lA.t0vexcluldeflihe payment of interest. ,§§Eé'§.ga