COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/95/2006HC GujaratGJHC24037085200613 November 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the submission made by the revenue deserves consideration. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Jt. CIT v. Rolta India's case, the Court noted that interest leviable under section 234B is applicable to all companies, with the sole prerequisite being the assessee's liability to pay tax under section 208. The Court reiterated that the expression 'assessed tax' is defined to mean tax on total income determined under section 143(1) or 143(3), reduced by tax deducted or collected at source. It was emphasized that there is no exclusion of section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B, and 'assessed tax' includes tax determined on the application of section 115J/115JA in regular assessment. Consequently, the question of law was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on income determined under section 115J. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed the AO's decision and deleted the interest levy. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the ITAT's order. The High Court admitted the appeal and formulated a substantial question of law regarding the applicability of interest under section 234C in cases of assessment under section 115J.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be charged in the case of assessment of profit under section 115J of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) v. Associated Crown Closures P. Ltd., [2009] 315 ITR 291 (Guj), which held that interest under sections 234B and 234C is not leviable in the case of assessment of a company on the basis of book profits under section 115J. The assessee also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., [2006] 284 ITR 434 (SC), which distinguished between sections 115J, 115JA, and 115JB. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rolta India Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 470 (SC), held that interest under section 234B is payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under section 115JA. The revenue highlighted that sections 115JA(4) and 115JB(5) state that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to MAT companies, and amendments provide for advance tax payment under sections 115JA and 115JB. The revenue argued that section 234B applies to all companies, with the prerequisite being liability to pay tax under section 208, and the expression 'assessed tax' includes tax determined under section 115J/115JA in regular assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234C,Section 115J,Section 234B,Section 115JA,Section 115JB,Section 208,Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/95/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 95 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR M.R. BHATT, SR. STANDING COUNSEL WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BS SOPARKAR FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Page 1 of 5

O/TAXAP/95/2006 JUDGMENT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 13/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. While   admitting   the   appeal   on   21.08.2006,   the   following substantial question of law was formulated for our consideration; “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest u/s.234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be charged in case of assessment of profit u/s 115J of the I.T. Act ? 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Assessing Officer had levied   interest   u/s.234B   and   234C   of   the   Act   on   the   income determined u/s.115J of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing   Officer.   On   further   appeal   being   filed,   the   Appellate Tribunal reversed the order passed by the A.O and deleted the levy of interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. M.R. Bhatt learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the question raised in this appeal is already   answered   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of   Joint Commissioner of Income­tax v. Rolta India Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 470 (SC), it was held that interest u/s.234B is payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable u/s.115JA. He drew our attention to the observations made in para­8, which reads as under; Page 2 of 5

O/TAXAP/95/2006 JUDGMENT “8. Section 115J was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from April 1, 1988. This section was in force from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1991. After April 1, 1991, section 115JA was inserted by the Finance Act of 1996 with effect from April 1, 1997. After insertion of section 115JA, section 115JB was inserted by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from April 1, 2001. It is clear from reading sections 115JA and 115JB that the question whether a company which is liable to pay tax under either provision does not assume importance because specific provision(s) is made in the section saying that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to the MAT company (section 115JA(4) and section 115JB(5)). Similarly, amendments have been made in the relevant Finance Acts providing for payment of advance tax under sections 115JA and 115JB. So far as interest leviable under section 234B is concerned, the section is clear that it applies to all companies. The prerequisite condition for applicability of section 234B is that the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 208 and the expression “assessed tax” is defined to mean the tax on the total income determined under section 143(1) or under Section 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source. Thus, there is no exclusion of section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B. The expression “assessed tax” is defined to mean the tax assessed on regular assessment which means the tax determined on the   application   of   section   115J/115JA   in   the   regular assessment.” 4. Mr. BS Soparkar learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the above point was considered by this Court in the case   of   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Income­tax   (Assessment)   v. Associated Crown Closures P. Ltd., [2009] 315 ITR 291 (Guj), wherein, it is held that interest is not leviable under sections 234B and 234C of the Act in the case of assessment of a company on the basis of book profits u/s.115J of the Act. Page 3 of 5

O/TAXAP/95/2006 JUDGMENT 4.1 Learned counsel Mr. Soparkar submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in its earlier   decision   in   the   case   of   Commissioner   of   Income­tax   v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., [2006] 284 ITR 434 (SC). Learned counsel submitted   that   in   the   aforesaid   decision,   the   Apex   Court   has distinguished the provisions of Section 115J and 115JA and 115JB of   the   Act   and   therefore,   the   present   appeal   deserves   to   be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Having gone through the factual aspects of the case and the principle rendered by the Apex Court in the above­referred cases, we are of the opinion that the submission made by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt deserves consideration. In Jt. CIT v. Rolta India’s case (supra), it has been categorically held that  interest leviable u/s.234B is applicable to all companies and that the only prerequisite condition for applicability of section 234B is that the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 208. 6. The expression “assessed tax” is defined to mean the tax on the total income determined under section 143(1) or under section 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source. Thus, there is no exclusion of section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B. The expression “assessed tax” is defined to mean the tax assessed on regular assessment, which means the tax determined on the application of section 115J/115JA in the regular assessment. Page 4 of 5

O/TAXAP/95/2006 JUDGMENT 7. Considering the principle rendered in the above decision of the   Apex   Court,   the   question   of   law   raised   in   this   appeal   is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) Pravin/* Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 234C

All 6,043 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →