Whether interest u/s 234B & 234C could be levied on income which arose from retrospective amendment?

0
553

Whether interest u/s 234B & 234C could be levied on income which arose from retrospective amendment?

INCOME TAX: Where High Court held that imposition of interest was justified under sections 234B and 234C, save and except on income which arose from retrospective operation of any statute, decision, etc., because in those type of cases, assessee was unable to know and assess his income and pay advance tax; SLP filed against said order of High Court was to be granted

[2019] 107 taxmann.com 435 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata

v.

Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.*

DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO (S). 17326 OF 2019†

JULY  2, 2019

Section 234B, read with section 234C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Advance tax – Interest, chargeable as (Applicability of) – High Court held that imposition of interest was justified under sections 234B and 234C, save and except on income which arose from retrospective operation of any statute, decision, etc. because in those type of cases, assessee was unable to know and assess his income and pay advance tax accordingly – Whether SLP filed against said order of High Court was to be granted – Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of revenue]

CASE REVIEW

 

Pr. CIT v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 434 (Cal.) [SLP granted; See annex].

Tushar Mehta, SG, Rupesh KumarMs. Rukmini Bobde, Advs. Anirudh Bhakru and Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR for the Petitioner.

ORDER

 

1.. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Tag with C.A.No.12632/2017.

ANNEX

[2019] 107 taxmann.com 434 (Cal.)

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Principal Commissioner of Income tax, Kolkata IV v. Haldiya Petrochemicals Ltd.

I.P. MUKERJI AND SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, JJ. 
ITAT NO. 161 OF 2017 
GA NO. 1416 OF 2017 
NOVEMBER 15, 2018

Animesh Ghoshal and Bipul Kundalia, Advs. for the AppellantJ.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Souvik Ghosh, Adv. and Karuna Bose, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

 

1. The Court: As very short points are involved, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we propose to deal with the application and the appeal together.

2. As far as the question of law raised in paragraph 7(c) of the petition is concerned, Mr. Khaitan submits and in our view correctly that the point has been decided by the tribunal in favour of the revenue, against which the assessee is proposing to file a section 260A appeal. So there is no way the revenue should be aggrieved by this part of the impugned order of the Tribunal.

3. The question in paragraphs 7(a), (d) and (e) of the petition do not on their face raise any question of law, let alone any substantial question of law. They concern facts only.

4. Therefore, we refuse to admit the appeal on the above questions.

5. As far as the question raised in paragraph 7(b) of the petition is concerned, we answer it by saying that imposition of interest is justified under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, save and except on the income which arises from retrospective operation of any statute, decision etc. In those type of cases, the assessee is unable to know and assess his income and pay advance tax accordingly..

6. Hence this appeal (ITAT No. 161 of 2017) and the stay application (GA No. 1416 of 2017) are disposed of on the above terms.

7. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.*

In favour of revenue.

† Pr. CIT v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 434 (Cal.).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here