AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND 2 ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/865/2010HC Bombay02 July 2010Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR25 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Settlement Commission was justified in rectifying its earlier order. It reasoned that on March 19, 2008, when the original order was passed, there was a binding judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sahitya Mudranalaya, confirmed by the Gujarat High Court, which held that interest under Section 234B should be awarded when the Settlement Commission passes an order under Section 245D(4), even if no interest was leviable at the time of the original assessment. These decisions were consistent with Supreme Court judgments in Anjum Ghaswala and Hindustan Bulk Carriers. The Court found that the Settlement Commission committed an error apparent by not following these binding precedents. The Court also noted that the Settlement Commission has no power to waive interest. Therefore, the Settlement Commission was justified in exercising its power under Section 254 to rectify the mistake apparent on the record and direct the levy of interest under Section 234B. The writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commission. The dispute concerns the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07. The Settlement Commission initially passed an order under Section 245D(4) determining the total taxable income for these years. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax filed an application for rectification under Section 254, arguing that the Settlement Commission had erred in not charging interest under Section 234B. The Settlement Commission, by an order dated February 3, 2010, rectified its earlier order, holding that the omission to charge interest was a mistake apparent from the record and directed the Assessing Officer to levy interest under Section 234B on the total income determined by the Section 245D(4) order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Settlement Commission, when passing an order under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can award interest under Section 234B even if no interest was chargeable under the original order of assessment? (Question of law). The assessee contended that Section 234B(4) only allows for an increase or reduction of interest if it was initially chargeable under the original assessment order, making a prior levy a precondition. The revenue, through the Commissioner's rectification application, argued that the Settlement Commission had ignored binding Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala and CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, and a Gujarat High Court decision in Sahitya Mudranalaya vs. I.T. Settlement Commission, which held that interest under Section 234B should be levied on the total income determined by the Commission, even if not initially leviable. The revenue also argued that the Settlement Commission had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 254.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 245C,Section 245D,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 153A,Section 142(1),Section 254,Section 115J,Section 207,Section 234C,Section 143(1A)(a),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 WP/865/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2010 Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd.           ...Petitioner.                         Vs. The Income Tax Act Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents.                                 .... Mr.Percy J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Atul K.Jasani   for the  Petitioner. Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan   for the Respondents.                                 .....                                 CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND  J.P.DEVADHAR,  JJ.                                               July 2, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : Rule,   by   consent     returnable   forthwith.       With   the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. The issue which arises in these proceedings is whether the Settlement Commission, when it passes an order under Section 245D   of   the  Income   Tax   Act,   1961,   can   award   interest   under Section 234B even though no interest was chargeable under the original order of assessment.   Section 234B(4) provides, among other things, that where as a result of an order of the Settlement CNR No : HCBM020094672010 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

2 WP/865/10 Commission under Section 245D(4) “the amount on which interest was payable under sub­section (1) or sub­section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly.”   The contention of the assessee is that unless initially, interest was chargeable under the original assessment order, the question of an increase or reduction would not arise and that a prior levy of interest in the original assessment order   is   a   pre­condition   for   the   levy   of   interest   under   Section 234B(4).

2.

The Petitioner is an IATA approved travel agent and is engaged in the business of domestic and international air ticketing. The Petitioner also acts as a money changer of foreign exchange. The Petitioner has twenty six branches in India and a head office at Mumbai.  For Assessment Years 2002­03 to 2006­07, the Petitioner filed returns of income.  In each of the years, the tax deducted at source was more than the tax payable on the income declared.  The returns of income for Assessment Years 2002­03 and 2004­05 were accepted and an intimation  was issued under Section 143(1). For Assessment Year 2003­04,  the case was selected for scrutiny and Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

3 WP/865/10 an assessment was completed under Section 143(3).   A search action was conducted under Section 132 on 9 November 2005. Pursuant   thereto,   notices   were   issued   to   the   Petitioner   under Section 153A, in response to which, the Petitioner filed its returns of income.  On 15 May 2007, notices were issued to the Petitioner under Section 142(1) for the Assessment Years in question.  On 31 May 2007, the Petitioner filed an application to the Settlement Commission   under   Section   245C.     On   19   March   2008,   the Settlement Commission passed an order under Section 245D(4) under which the total taxable income for five Assessment Years was determined as follows: Sr.No. Assessment Year Returned Income Additional Income Total Income 1 2002­03 92,03,644 1,77,76,037 2,69,79,681 2 2003­04 2,20,96,220    14,66,628 2,35,63,248 3 2004­05 3,09,34,034 1,08,16,326 4,17,50,360 4 2005­06 4,79,11,704 103174081 151085785 5. 2006­07 3,69,23,334   29,91,158 3,99,14,492

3.

The   Settlement   Commission,   on   the   issue   of   interest under Section 234B(4), relied on an earlier order passed by it in the Dolat Group of cases and held that interest would be charged only if interest had been initially charged in the original order of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

4 WP/865/10 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

5 WP/865/10 Commission had ignored binding decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court.

5.

By   an   order   dated   3   February   2010,   the   Settlement Commission held that the direction not to charge interest under Section 234B was a mistake apparent on the record and had to be rectified under Section 254. The Commission held that on 19 March 2008, when it had passed its order, a decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal   in  Sahitya   Mudranalaya,4  had   taken   the   view   that interest   under   Section   234B   should   be   awarded   when   the Settlement Commission  passes an order under Section 235B(4) even if no interest was leviable at the time of the original order of assessment.  The Commission noted that the levy of interest under Section 234B is mandatory under the judgment of the Supreme Court   in  Anjum   Ghaswala  (supra)   and   that   in   a   subsequent decision in Hindustan Bulk Carriers (supra), the Supreme Court has held that both the disclosed income before the Income Tax Department   and   the   income   disclosed   before   the   Settlement Commission should be clubbed together and the tax and interest 4 (1995) 79 Taxman 463 (Bom) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

6 WP/865/10 would be calculated on the aggregate amount.  Moreover, it was held   that   the   Settlement   Commission   has   no   power   to   waive interest.   The Settlement Commission held that since the levy of interest was mandatory, it had committed an obvious mistake in directing that interest under Section 234B should not be charged and having regard to the judgment of the Tribunal in  Sahitya Mudranalaya  which was directly on the issue when it passed its order, the Commission had committed an error apparent by not charging interest.   The order was accordingly rectified and the Assessing Officer was directed to levy interest under Section 234B on the total income determined by the order under Section 245D(4) from the first day of April of the relevant Assessment Year until the date of the order under Section 245D(4).

6.

On behalf of the assessee, it has been urged that (i) Under Section 254, the power of rectification can be exercised only with a view to rectifying  a mistake apparent from the record.  The finding of the Commission in its original order dated 19 March 2008, directing the Assessing Officer not to charge interest under Section 234B(4) was not erroneous and in any event should not be Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

7 WP/865/10 considered to be a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified; (ii) On a plain reading of Section 234B(4)  it is only in a case where, as a result of the order passed by the Commission, the amount of interest payable under Section 234B(1) or Section 234B(3) has been increased or reduced,   that interest under the Section can be reduced or increased.  Accordingly, unless interest was initially chargeable under the original order of assessment, a question of increase or reduction would not arise.  Hence, the prior levy   of   interest   in   the   original   order   of   assessment   is   a   pre­ condition for a levy of additional interest under Section 234B(4); (iii) In Anjum Ghaswala, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Commission has the power to reduce or waive interest chargeable   under Section 234A, 234B and 234C.   The Supreme Court   held   that   the   levy   of   interest   under   Section   234B   was mandatory and the Commission did not have the power to waive or reduce interest  in an order under Section 245D(4).  This decision is not an authority for the proposition   that the Commission is empowered   to   charge   interest   for   the   first   time   under   Section 234B(4) in an order under Section 245D(1) even if it has not been charged in the original order of assessment; (iv) The decision of the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

8 WP/865/10 order of assessment; (ii) The observations of the Supreme Court  in Anjum Ghaswala  and  Hindustan Bulk Carriers  would establish that interest is chargeable under Section 234B(4) for the first time, under   an   order   of   the   Settlement   Commission   under   Section 245D(4);  (iii) The Settlement Commission was under Section 254 duty bound to rectify a mistake which had occurred, which was apparent from the record, since it is a fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the 5 (2005) 279 ITR 432 (SC) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

9 WP/865/10 Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal.  In ignoring the binding judgment of the Tribunal in Sahitya   Mudranalaya  (supra),   which   held   the   field   when   the Settlement   Commission   had   passed   an   order   originally   on   19 March   2008,   the   Settlement   Commission   committed   an   error apparent on the record which it could rectify under Section 254. 8. Sub­sections   (1)   and   (4)   of   Section   234B   are   of particular   relevance   to   the   controversy   which   arises   in   these proceedings.  For aiding the discussion, it would be appropriate to extract in entirety,  the statutory provision : “234B. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or,  where  the advance  tax paid by  such  assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income under Sub­ section   (1)   of   Section   143   and   where   a   regular assessment   is   made,   to   the   date   of   such   regular assessment, on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

10 WP/865/10 Explanation 1, ­ In this section, “assessed tax” means the tax on the total income determined under sub­section (1) of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made, the   tax   on   the   total   income   determined   under   such regular assessment as reduced by the amount of, ­ (i) any   tax   deducted   or   collected   at   source   in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection   and   which   is   taken   into   account   in computing such total income; (ii)  any  relief   of  tax  allowed   under  section   90  on account of tax paid in a country outside India; (iii)any relief of tax allowed under section 90A on account of tax paid in a specified territory outside India referred to in that section; (iv)any   deduction,   from   the   Indian   income­tax payable, allowed under section 91, on account of tax paid in a country outside India; and (v)any tax credit allowed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA. Explanation 2.­ Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147 or section 153A, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section. Explanation 3.­ In Explanation 1 and in sub­section (3) “tax on the total income determined under Sub­section (1)   of   Section   143”   shall   not   include   the   additional income­tax, if any, payable under section 143. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

11 WP/865/10 ­(2) Where,   before   the   date   of   determination   of total income under Sub­section (1) of Section 143 or completion of a regular assessment, tax is paid by the assessee under Section 140A or otherwise.­ (i) interest shall be calculated in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section up to the date on which the tax is so paid, and reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section; (ii)thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax. ­(3) Where, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A, the amount on which interest was payable under sub­section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest a the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date following the date of determination of total income under   Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   143     and   where   a regular   assessment   is   made   as   is   referred   to   in   sub­ section (1) following the date of such regular assessment and   ending   on   the   date   of   the   reassessment   or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on   the   basis   of   the   reassessment   or   recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under Sub­section (1) of Section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. ­(4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section  250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under Sub­ section   (4)   of   Section   245D,   the   amount   on   which Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

12 WP/865/10 interest was payable under sub­section (1) or sub­section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and ­ (i) in   a   case   where   the   interest   is   increased,   the Assessing   Officer   shall   serve   on   the   assessee   a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; (ii)in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded. ­(5) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect   of   assessments   for   the   assessment   year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.”

9.

Section 234B provides for the payment of interest on default in the payment of  advance tax. The provision is attracted where in any  financial year: (i) An assessee who is liable to pay advance tax has failed to do so; or (ii) Where the advance tax paid by the assessee is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax.  The assessee in such a case is liable to pay interest as specified in the Section from the first day of April next following the financial year to the date of determination of the total income under Section Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

13 WP/865/10 143(1) and, where a regular assessment is made, to the date of the regular assessment.  Interest is payable on “an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax”.  Sub­ section (4) of Section 234B applies in a situation where, as a result of orders passed under Sections 154, 155, 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4),   “the amount on which the interest was payable under Sub­sections (1) or (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may   be.”     Thereupon,   the   provision   is   that   interest   shall   be increased or reduced accordingly.  In a case where the interest is increased,  the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice of demand whereas if the interest is reduced, the excess interest has to be refunded.

10.

In the present case, the issue before the Court arises out of the order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) and the question is as to whether the amount on which interest was payable   under   Sub­section   (1)   or   sub­section   (3)   has   been increased or reduced.  Now, in  Sub­section (1) of Section 234B, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

14 WP/865/10 interest is payable on an amount equal to the assessed tax (where the assessee who is liable to pay advance tax has failed to pay such tax) or  on the amount by which the advance tax paid falls short of the   assessed   tax.     In   a   situation   where   the   assessee   has   paid advance tax which is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, interest is payable on the difference between the assessed tax  and the advance tax paid.   Sub­section 4 of Section 234(B) refers to a situation where “the amount on which interest was payable under sub­section (1) or sub­section (3) has been increased or reduced” inter alia as a result of an order of the Settlement Commission. The amount which is referred to in sub­section (4), is the amount on which interest is payable under sub­section (1) or sub­section (3).   That amount is the amount by which the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax.   When Sub­section (4) of Section 234B refers to “the amount on which interest was payable under Sub­section (1) or Sub­section (3)”, that amount is the difference between the advance tax paid and the assessed tax.  The words “on which interest was payable” have     been used in a     descriptive sense  to identify the amount specified in Sub­section (1), or as the case may be, in sub­section (3).  In Sub­section (1), the amount is Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

15 WP/865/10 the   difference   between   the   advance   tax   and   the   assessed   tax. These words do not impose a condition that for interest to be attracted under Section 234B(4) interest should actually have been levied under the original order of assessment   under sub­section (1).  The effect of the order of the Settlement Commission in this case is to enhance the assessed income.   The amount by which the advance tax paid by the assessee falls short of the assessed tax has been increased as a result of the order passed by the Settlement Commission.   This is the amount on which interest was payable under Sub­section (1) for if the assessee were to make a correct disclosure of his income in the first instance, the assessee would have been liable to pay interest under Sub­section (1) on the short fall.     The   words,   “the   interest   shall   be   increased”,   would contemplate both a situation where interest had been levied on  the assessee in the first instance, and a situation where no interest has been levied on the assessee in the original order of assessment. There is no reason or justification for the Court on the basis of the plain   language   used   in   sub­section   (4)   to   exclude   the   latter category of cases as contended on behalf of the assessee from the liability   to   pay   interest.       In   accepting   the   submission   of   the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

16 WP/865/10 assessee,  the Court  would be  adopting  an interpretation  which would be contrary both to the language used by the Legislature and the intent that is embodied in Sub­section (4).

11.

The view which we have taken on the  interpretation of Sub­sections  (1) and (4)  of Section  234B, as a matter of  first Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

17 WP/865/10 extent of granting relief under  circulars issued by the Board under Section 119. In the following observations, the judgment of the Supreme Court indicates that necessary changes in regard to the payment of interest would have to be made depending on the change   that   has   occurred   upon   the   order   of   the   Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4): “A perusal of this sub­section which refers to sub­section (4) of Section 245D mandates that if by virtue of an order passed under section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub­section (1) or sub­ section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly.  This section is an indicator of the fact that so far as the interest falling due by virtue of default   in   furnishing   a   return   of   income,   default   in payment   of   advance   tax   or   interest   for   deferment   of advance tax are concerned, Part F of Chapter XVII has been obligated with the duty of levy of interest, as also to make the necessary changes in the payment of interest dependent on the change that may be occur consequent to the order of settlement under section 245D(4). ... If the scheme of levy of interest is thus to be analysed   on   the   anvil   of   the   provisions   referred   to hereinabove,   it   shows   that   the   interest   contemplated under sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory in nature and the power of waiver or reduction having not been expressly conferred on the Commission, the same indicates that so far as the payment of statutory interest is concerned,  the same is outside  the purview  of the settlement   completed   in   Chapter   XIX­A   of   the   Act.” Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

18 WP/865/10

The Supreme Court has also held that while providing for the terms of   settlement   under   Sub­section   (6)   of   Section   245D,   the Section 234B observed thus: “It   cannot   be   even   countenanced   that   no   interest   is chargeable for that portion of the income forming part of the total income as determined by the Commission which was not earlier disclosed before the Assessing Officer.” The   judgment   holds   that   while   the   Commission   has   “sufficient elbow room in assessing the income of the assessee”, the terms of settlement cannot be in conflict with the mandatory provisions of the Act such as quantum and payment of tax and the interest.  The Learned Judge further held as follows : Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

19 WP/865/10 “There is another way of looking at the issue.   Section 234B(3) provides differently for regular assessment and reassessment.     In   a   reassessment,   ordinarily   income assessed is more than what was determined originally.  If two   different   periods   are   provided   to   meet   such   a situation, it is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to totally give a go by to interest on the income which for the first time is disclosed before the Commission.   By analogy and harmony, the period has to be till the date of the Commission’s order. To put it differently, the interest charged in terms of sections 234A, 234B and 234C becomes payable on   the   income   already   disclosed   in   the   returns   filed, together   with   the   income   disclosed   before   the Commission.   The concerned interest as aforesaid shall be   on   the   consolidated   amount   of   income,   i.e.,   both disclosed   and   undisclosed.     as   indicated   above,   such interest   shall   be   charged   till   the   Commission   acts   in terms of section 245D.” Concurring judgments were delivered by Mr.Justice M.B.Shah and Mr.Justice   D.M.Dharmadhikari.     In   the   judgment   of   Mr.Justice D.M.Dharmadhikari, it was observed thus: “The provisions contained in Chapter XIX­A merely aim at encouraging taxpayers   to approach the Settlement Commission with full disclosure of their income which they had not earlier disclosed in the course of regular assessment.     Such   assessees   who   co­operate   with   the assessing authorities in making proper assessment of tax can be granted immunity from prosecution and penalty. There is no provision that they can be granted immunity from payment of interest on the tax assessed.” Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

20 WP/865/10 It is true, as contended by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee,   that   the   issue   which   arose   in  Anjum   Ghaswala  was whether the Settlement Commission while passing an order under Section 245D(4) has the power to waive or reduce interest and the question was answered in the negative.   Similarly, in  Hindustan Bulk Carriers, the specific issue that came up before the Supreme Court was the date from which interest is chargeable under the Act. The   judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court,   however,   cannot   be distinguished purely on that basis.  In so far as the High Court is concerned,  the  observations   of   the  Supreme   Court   made   while interpreting the provisions of Section 234B are  binding.

12.

The fact that there is a reference  to the Constitution Bench in  Brij Lal Vs.CIT, (supra) on the question as to whether Sections   234A,   234B   and   234C   are   applicable   to   proceedings before   the   Settlement   Commission   and  whether   the   Settlement Commission can reopen concluded proceedings by   recourse to Section 254 so as to levy interest under these Sections though it was not done in the original proceedings, will not detract from the binding force of the judgment in  Anjum Ghaswala  so long as it Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

21 WP/865/10 continues to hold the field.

13.

A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in  Sahitya Mudranalaya  (supra) has specifically dealt with the issue as to whether interest can be levied under Section 234B in a case where no interest was leviable under the original order of assessment. After   adverting   to   the   observations   of   the   Supreme   Court   in Hindustan Bulk Carriers,  the Division Bench observed as follows: “Therefore, it becomes more than abundantly clear that while passing an order under Section 245D(4) of the Act the   Commission   exercises   powers   of   an   income­tax authority as provided under Section 245F of the Act and the   Commission   cannot   be   precluded   from   fastening liability   to   pay   interest   for   that   portion   of   income forming part of the total income as determined by the Commission which was not earlier disclosed before the Assessing Officer, even if no interest could have become leviable if originally disclosed income is considered in isolation by operation of section 234B(1) of the Act.”

14.

Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

22 WP/865/10 Company under Schedule VI cannot be prepared before the end of the previous year whereas, Section 207 provides for the estimation of   current   income   at   the   end   of   the   previous   year.     Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.H.Kapadia (as the Learned Chief Justice then was) rejected the argument and held that the difficulty faced by the assessee   in   computation   could   not   defeat   the   liability   to   pay advance tax.  The Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “Under section 207 of the Income Tax Act, advance tax is payable   during   any   financial   year     in   respect   of   the “current income”.  The words “current income” are very crucial. The   words   “current   income”   refer   to computation of total income under the provisions of the Income­tax Act including section 115J.   Under section 207 of the Income­tax Act, the words “total income” have been equated to the expression “current income”.   The matter can be looked at from another angle.  The interest which is leviable under section 234B and section 234C is compensatory in nature.  It has no element of penalty in it.  Therefore, it is clear that if there is non­payment or short payment of tax on the current income, then the assessee has to pay interest as the income has accrued to the   assessee   for   the   previous   year.     In   our   opinion, merely   because   the   curtain   rises   in   the   cases   of companies falling under section 115J after March 31, is no ground for the assessee­company not to pay interest under section 234B and section 234C.”

15.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee   relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in  Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

23 WP/865/10 Union of India.7  In that case, Section  143(1A(a)  came up for consideration under which it had been provided that where, in the case of any person, the total income, as a result of the adjustments made under the first proviso to clause (a) of Sub­section (1) exceeds the total income declared in the return by any amount, the Assessing Officer shall further increase the amount of tax payable under Sub­section (1) by an additional income­tax calculated as specified on such excess amount.   In the context of the specific words which were used in Section 143(1A)(a), the Delhi High Court held that where, after the adjustments under Section 143(1) are carried out, the resultant  figure is still a loss,  Section 143(1A) would not apply since no tax is payable if the resultant figure is a loss.   These observations are made in the context of the specific words used in the Section.

16.

We have dealt with the merits of the challenge to the order of the Settlement Commission dated 3 February 2010. But, it must be noted that it was urged on behalf of the Assessee that the Settlement Commission  ought not to have  exercised the power 7 (1992) 193 ITR 91 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

24 WP/865/10 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57

25 WP/865/10 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:02:57 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →