Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Mrs. Manali Singhal vs Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... on 28 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)81TTJ(JODH)452
ORDER
S.R. Chauhan, J.M.
1. As these appeals are inter-related and involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. WTA No. 91/Jp/1995 is an appeal by assessee Mrs. Manali Singhal for asst. yr. 1991-92 and is directed against the order of CIT(A), Udaipur, dt. 2nd Jan., 1995.
3. WTA No. 92/Jp/1995 is an appeal by assessee Mrs. Manjula Singhal for asst. yr. 1992-93 and is directed against the order of CIT(A), Udaipur, dt. 2nd Jan., 1995,
4. WTA No. 93/Jp/1995 is an appeal by assessee Ravi Singhal for asst. yr. 1992-93 and is directed against the order of CIT(A), Udaipur, dt. 2nd Jan., 1995.
5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.
6. The assessee-appellants have raised common ground in all the three appeals and the common ground disputes the learned CIT(A)'s rejection of assessee's rectification petition filed under Section 35 by AO. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the interest under Section 17B is chargeable on the amount of tax payable on the net wealth of assessee. He has contended that when full tax has been paid before the due date for filing of the return, then even if the return is filed with delay, no interest under Section 17B is chargeable. He has, in this regard, referred to Dr. Prannoy Roy and Anr. v. CIT and contended that the provisions of Section 234A of the IT Act, 1961, are basically similar to those of Section 17B of the WT Act, 1957. He has contended that in view of the ratio given in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Delhi Court, the interest under Section 17B of WT Act is to be charged only on the balance amount of tax which remains outstanding after the due date of filing of the return. He has contended that in each of the above three appeals, each of the assessees has paid substantial amounts of tax upto the due date of filing of return and that only small amounts of tax remained unpaid/outstanding after the due date of filing the return; and so the interest under Section 17B could have been charged only on the balance amount of tax remaining outstanding and not on the whole amount of tax payable on the total net wealth of assessee. He has also contended that there had been a mistake in respect of the period for which the interest has been calculated and that the assessee explained the correct periods also. He has contended that due to these mistakes apparent from record being there, each of the assessees filed rectification petitions under Section 35 of the WT Act, but the AO rejected the same and the learned CIT(A) confirmed the rejections made by AO, He has contended that the mistake being apparent from record deserves to be rectified. He has also contended that at the relevant time, there was no other judgment of any other High Court, and so the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was binding and the matter could not have been stated to have been debatable/arguable. He has, in this regard, also relied on CIT v. Purtabpore Co. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 362 (Cal) and CIT v. Smt Godavaii Dew Saraf (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom). As against this, the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the assessee had filed a petition for rectification under Section 35 of the WT Act seeking the rectification of AO's assessment order to the effect that the interest under Section 17B should not have been charged to tax which has been paid within due date for filing of the return. He has contended that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the rejection of rectification petition of assessee not only on the ground of issue being debatable but also on legal merits of the issue holding that there is no provision under Section 17B for deduction of tax under self-assessment. He has relied on the orders of authorities below.
7. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the interest under Section 234A is payable when a sum is due and not otherwise. It has been held that in a case where tax has been paid before the due date, though return has been filed late, interest under Section 234A is not payable. It has also been held that the object of enactment of Section 234A was to levy mandatory interest by way of compensation where tax is not paid with the return. It has been held that such an interest would be payable in a case where tax has been deposited prior to the due date for filing of the return. In (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom) (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the law declared by High Court in a state is binding on Tribunal in another state also, In (2986; 159 ITR 362 (Cal) (supra) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that when there is a decision of a High Court on a particular point and when there is no decision of any other High Court taking a contrary view, then it cannot be said that there was any debate or doubt or conflict on that particular point.
8. In our view, the provisions of Section 17B, WT Act, are basically/broadly similar to those contained in Section 234A, IT Act. Accordingly, in view of the decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the interest under Section 17B was payable by assessee-appellant only on the amount of tax which remained in balance/outstanding and payable by assessee after the due date for the filing of the return, and the same is not chargeable on the amount of tax which has already been paid by assessee upto the due date for the filing of the return. In that view of the matter, we do not consider it just to uphold the rejection of assessee's rectification petition. We, therefore, direct the AO to modify his orders in each one of the three appeals in respect of charging of interest under Section 17B in the manner held by us above. We order accordingly.
9. In the result, all the above three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above.