Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 vs. Chika Overseas Pvt Ltd

1 itxa3737-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3737 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Chika Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Ms. Aarti Vissanji with S.P. Mehta for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.D. DEVADHAR, J.)

2 itxa3737-10 (3) of the Act on 28/2/1997, the income for the assessment year in question was assessed at Ra.2.05 crores and by a demand notice dated 28/2/1997, demand of Rs.1.76 crores was raised against the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A), by his order dated 8/9/1997 partially allowed the claim of the assessee, as a result whereof the income was reduced to Rs.18.30 lakhs. Lateron, the ITAT set aside the assessment order dated 28/2/1997 and directed the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order. 4. Accordingly, the matter was heard afresh and by a fresh assessment order dated 24/12/2006 the assessing officer assessed the income at Rs.44.88 lakhs and raised a demand of Rs.22.02 lakhs. The assessee paid the amount beyond thirty days from the service of the demand notice dated 24/12/2006. The assessing officer held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Act after thirty days from the service of the original demand notice dated 28/2/1997. Challenging the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who held that the assessee is liable to pay interest after thirty days from the date of service of demand notice dated 24/12/2006 and not after thirty days from the service of demand notice dated 28/2/1997. The said order was upheld by the ITAT. Challenging the aforesaid order, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 5. The argument of the revenue is that even though the original Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:56:19

3 itxa3737-10 assessment order dated 28/2/1997 was set aside by the ITAT, once the fresh assessment order is passed, the demands arising therefrom would relate back to the date of service of the original demand notice. In the present case, the original demand was served on 28/2/1997 and, therefore, interest under Section 220(2) would be leviable after thirty days from 28/2/1997. 6) We see no merit in the above contention. Under Section 156 of the Act, service of the demand notice is mandatory. Section 220(2) of the Act provides that if the amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the period prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 220, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate prescribed therein. 7) In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original assessment order dated 28/2/1997 was set aside by the ITAT with a direction to pass fresh assessment order. Accordingly, fresh assessment order was passed on 24/12/2006 and the demand notice was served on 24/12/2006. As per Section 220(1) of the Act, the assessee was liable to pay the amount of demand within thirty days from the service of demand notice dated 24/12/2006. It is only if the assessee fails to pay the amount demanded, within thirty days of the service of the demand notice dated 24/12/2006 as stipulated under Section 220(1) of the Act, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:56:19

4 itxa3737-10 the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Act. If the liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) arises after thirty days of the service of the demand notice dated 24/12/2006, the question of demanding interest for the period prior to 24/12/2006 does not arise at all. Neither the assessment order dated 24/12/2006 nor the demand notice dated 24/12/2006 required the assessee to pay interest after thirty days from the date of service of the original demand notice dated 28/2/1997. Since the demand itself was crystallized under the assessment order dated 24/12/2006 and the assessee under Section 220(1) of the Act had time to pay that demand upto thirty days of the service of the demand notice dated 24/12/2006, the argument of the revenue that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Act, for the period prior to the crystallization of the demand on 24/12/2006 cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Act from the end of the period mentioned in Section 220(1) of the Act i.e. thirty days after the service of notice of demand dated 24/12/2006 till the date on which the amount demanded was paid cannot be faulted. 8. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:56:19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)