M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 794/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke M/s GIE Jewels, Income Tax officer, Vs. F-33, Phase-2, SEZ RIICO Ward-2(1), Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKFG0497P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 795/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke M/s GIE Jewels, Income Tax officer, Vs. F-33, Phase-2, SEZ RIICO Ward-2(1), Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKFG0497P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Neena Jeph (J.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/12/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 08/12/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two

separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur both dated 12.09.2017 for A.Ys.

2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. The assessee has raised common

grounds in these appeals, the grounds for A.Y. 2013-14 are as under:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by wrongfully applying provisions of section 208 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for depositing Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) as self assessment tax and as advance tax. Thus the action of the Ld. AO deserves to be held bad in law and the consequent interest u/s 234B of Rs. 436625/- deserves to be deleted. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer in treating AMT as Income Tax to be deposited in Advance as per the provisions of Section 208 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and charged interest u/s 234B by alleging default in depositing advance tax. Thus the action of the Ld. AO deserves to be herd bad in raw and consequent interest u/s 234B of Rs. 436625/- deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A ) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer in not allowing application of assessee filed u/s 154 for not treating AMT as Income Tax without assigning any reason for such disallowance. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter and/or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

manufacturing, exports of silver and Gold jewellery as well as precious

and semi precious stones. During the assessment proceedings

completed u/s 143(3) the Assessing Officer accepted the return of

income however, charged interest u/s 234B because the assessee did

not pay the advance tax as per the provisions of section 115JC r.w.s.

208 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee subsequently filed an

application u/s 154 of the I.T. Act and submitted that there is an

apparent mistake on record of the assessment for charging interest u/s

234B. The assessee contended before the AO that the provisions of

section 234B were not applicable for charging interest on account of

non-payment of advance Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AO

rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. The

assessee challenged the action of the AO rejecting the application u/s

154 before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of section

234B were not applicable on alternative minimum tax liability u/s 115JC.

The ld. CIT(A) has impressed with the contention of the assessee and

upheld the decision of the AO in levying interest u/s 234 and rejecting

the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act.

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

filing the return of income the assessee made payment of alternative

minimum tax under the provisions of section 115JC however, while

completing the assessment the AO charged interest u/s 234B for not

paying the alternative minimum tax as per scheme of advance tax u/s

208 is not applicable to the facts of the case and in respect of the tax

payment made u/s 115JC. He has further contended that the reliance of

CIT(A) on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of JCIT vs.

Rolta India Ltd 196 taxmann 594 as well as Hon’ble Karnataka High

Court in case of Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 taxman

547 is misplaced as these decisions are not on section 115JC but these

decisions were rendered with reference to section 115JB which is in

respect of MAT whereas section 115JC was introduced in the statute

w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and proceeds for payment of alternative minimum tax

for the assessee other than corporate assessee. The ld. AR then

contended that in case of corporate assessee the books of accounts are

required to be maintained as per the provisions of Companies Act

whereas in case of other assessee when the books of account are not

required to maintain as per companies Act then, it is not possible to

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

estimate the income in advance with a reasonable accuracy. The ld. AR

has thus contended that the provisions of Section 115JB cannot be

compared with the provisions of section 115JC and therefore, the

assessee cannot be expected to pay the advance tax on the basis of

books profits in terms of section 115JC. The ld. AR then contended that

the alternative minimum tax as per the provisions of section 115JC is

payable an adjusted total income and as such income is deemed to be

total income. There is nothing under this provision requiring payment of

advance tax u/s 208 of the Act. Thus, in the entire chapter there is no

a single word referring to payment of interest of any type leave aside

section 234B. The ld. AR has further contended that deeming provisions

create a legal fiction only for a definite purpose and they are limited to

that purpose only and should not be extended beyond that unless it is

clearly and expressly provided. Therefore, it is not permissible to

impose the liability of supposition of law. In support of his contention he

has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) CIT vs. Elphinstone Sps & Wvg. Mills Co Ltd 40 ITR 142 (SC)

(ii) Balkrishnan Memon (MK) vs. ACED 83 ITR 162 (SC)

(iii) CIT vs. Amarchand N Shroof 48 ITR 59 (SC)

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

(iv) Executor & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir Vs. CIT 35 ITR

537 (Bom)

To sum up his arguments, the ld. AR has submitted that the provisions

of section 115JC are introduced in the statute with the purpose to tax

the other persons in addition to companies paying zero tax. The

purpose of this section is limited to pay tax as per this provision and

cannot extend to other provisions of the Act. i.e. 208 or 234B. There is

vast different in the payment of advance tax and that of alternative

minimum tax. The Advance tax is levied on current income and

payment is based on estimate where as AMT is based on book profit

which can be arrived at only on finalization of accounts by the auditors.

In such circumstances AMT cannot be paid in advance tax and can be

paid only after the end of the financial year that too on finalization of

accounts. Therefore, it is patently wrong to apply advance tax

provisions on payment of AMT. He has further contended that in case

advance tax is found in excess of regular tax the same is refunded on

completion of assessment u/s 143(1) or u/s 143(3). The excess

payment of advance tax is not carried forward to set off against tax

liability of subsequent assessment years whereas in case of payment

AMT the same is never refunded and as per the provision of section

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

115JD(4) the payment of AMT shall be carried forward for credit upto subsequently 10th assessment years. Further, in case of advance tax the

Revenue is liable to pay interest u/s 244A(a) of the Act but no such

refund is allowed on payment of AMT. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted

that the assessee cannot be held liable for advance tax section 208 on

account of tax liability u/s 115JC and consequently no interest can be

levied u/s 234B on such tax liability.

covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs.

Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 as well as decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat

High Court in case of JCIT vs. Sumit Industries Ltd. 54 taxmann.com

345 and decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of

CIT vs. Rana Sugars Ltd. 14 taxmann.com 191. The ld. DR has also

relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.

CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as

Hon’ble High Court while deciding this issue.

material on record. At the outset, we find that this issue of levy of

interest u/s 234B in respect of tax liability in accordance with the

provisions of section 115JC of the Act is a highly debatable issue and

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

therefore, would be beyond the purview and scope of the provisions of

section 154 of the Act where by only a mistake apparent and manifest

on record can be rectified which does not require a long drawn

reasoning or arguments on the issue. Therefore, the issue of levy of

interest u/s 234B and applicability of the provisions of sections 207 and

208 of the Act cannot be decided in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act.

However, since neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has raised this objection

against the application filed by the assessee u/s 154, therefore, we

would consider and determine this issue on merits. The main thrust of

the arguments of the ld. AR of the assesee is that the provisions of

section 115JB cannot be compared with section 115JC because the

assessee other than the corporate assessee are not required to

maintain the books of accounts as per the provisions of Companies Act

and therefore, it is not possible to estimate the book profit with a

reasonable accuracy prior to finalization of accounts, the ld. AR has also

contended that provisions of section 115JC are deeming provisions and

cannot be extended to the other provisions of the Act to fasten any tax

liability on the assessee. It is pertinent to note that section 115JC has

been substituted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to bring in its

fold all assessee other than a company. Prior to its substitution section

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

115JC was applicable only in respect of certain limited liability

partnership. For ready reference we quote section 115JC as under:- “115JC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the regular income-tax payable for a previous year by a person, other than a company, is less than the alternate minimum tax payable for such previous year, the adjusted total income shall be deemed to be the total income of that person for such previous year and he shall be liable to pay income-tax on such total income at the rate of eighteen and one-half per cent. (2) Adjusted total income referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the total I ncome before giving effect to this Chapter as increased by— (i) deductions claimed, if any, under any section (other than section 80P) included in Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes"; 28[***] (ii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 10AA29[; and] 29[(iii) deduction claimed, if any, under section 35AD as reduced by the amount of depreciation allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32 as if no deduction under section 35AD was allowed in respect of the assets on which the deduction under that section is claimed.]

(3) Every person to whom this section applies shall obtain a report, in such form as may be prescribed30, from an accountant, certifying that the adjusted total income and the alternate minimum tax have been computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and furnish such report on or before the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139.]

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

We find that the provisions of section 115JC though applicable to a

different set off of persons however, the scheme and objective of the

said provision is akin and pari materia to the provisions of section

115JB. The purpose and objects of introduction of provision in the

statute is to pay the tax by the persons other than company on book

profit even if the tax liability on regular assessment is zero. Therefore,

the intent of legislation to introduce this provision is to bring the person

other than the company in the preview of payment of tax of AMT on

book profit who are otherwise paying zero tax or very less tax. In fact

this is not a true tax liability but only collection of tax which can be

adjusted against the future tax liability of assess and therefore, it

ensures that the persons as specified under these provisions cannot be

allowed to pay no tax for a long period of time. The ld. AR of the

assessee has tried to make a distinction between the payment of

advance tax and payment of AMT based on books profit and submitted

that the payment of advance tax if found in excess of regular tax the

same is refunded whereas the payment of AMT is never refunded but it

can be adjusted as per the provisions of section 115JD (iv) of the Act.

Further, the advance tax carries the interest u/s 244A but no such

refund or interest is payable on the AMT. We find that this contention of

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

the ld. AR is misconceived as even if an advance tax based on book

profit is paid more the tax liability u/s 115JC on final book profit then

the said excess amount of advance tax which is over and above tax

payable u/s 115JC is refundable and also the provisions of section 244A

are applicable on such refund. Therefore, the ld. AR has tried to project

the AMT as an excess payment whereas the advance payment made

based on book profit even found excess the same is refundable. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. (supra) has

upheld the levy of interest u/ss 234B and 234C in case of the assessee

being a company on the basis of book profit u/s 115JB. An identical

issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in case of

JCIT vs. Sumit Industries Ltd.(supra) and held in paras 7 to 10 as

under:- “7. The said question is raised in Tax Appeal No.677/2006. It appears from the decision of the Apex Court that the decision of the Tribunal will have to be reversed. The Apex Court in case of Jt. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 470/196 Taxman 594/9 taxmann.com 36 held as under: "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 11

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

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 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." 8. Relying on the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, where the issue of deletion of interest leviable under Section 234B and 234C of the Act, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Boils Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT has held as under: '1. The assessee has challenged the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.3.2010 raising following questions for our consideration: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest is leviable u/s 234B & 234C of the Act in case of an assessment order being framed on "Book Profits" u/s 115JB of the Act?" 2. On having heard learned senior counsel Shri Soparkar and having considered material on record, we are of the opinion that issue perhaps is no longer res integra as the same is decided by the Apex Court in case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Ltd. reported in [2011] 330 ITR 470 (SC) as under : "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)).

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

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 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." 3. Tax Appeal since raises no other question of law, same requires no further consideration. Tax Appeal is dismissed.' 9. The said issue is also decided by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 11/42 taxmann.com 363 where the issue was whether the assessee was liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C in respect of tax determined on basis of Section 115JA was answered in favour of the revenue as under: 2. ITA No.406 of 2005 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity, :the Tribunal") in ITA No.805/CHD/2000, for the Assessment Year 1998-99, claiming following substantial questions of law:-

"(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 115JA the interest under Sections 234B and 234C is to be charged under Section 143(1) (a) as a prima facie adjustment whereby no such charge made under Section 143(3)?

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

(ii) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Sections 115JA, 234B, 234C debatable issues can be covered under Section 143(1)(a)?

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

taxmann.com 792, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jt. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 470/196 Taxman 594/9 taxmann.com 36 came to the conclusion that interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act would be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB of the Act. 6. In view of the above, it is held that the appellant was liable to pay interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act in respect of tax determined on the basis of Section 115JA of the Act. The substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed.' 10. Since the question of law is already concluded vide the judgments rendered in the above decisions, we are not assigning elaborate reasons for disposing of these appeals. Accordingly, the questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeals stand allowed accordingly.” Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this

issue in case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 and by following

the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions

of section 234B are applicable in case of failure to pay advance tax in

respect of tax payable u/s 115JA/115JB of the Act. A similar view has

been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of

CIT vs. Rana Sugars Ltd. (supra) and held in paras 6 and 7 as under:- “6. The Apex Court in Rolta India Ltd.'s case (supra) had recorded as under:- "7. In our view, Section 115J/115JA are special provisions. Section 207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during 15

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in Sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215 (5) of the Act defined what is "assessed tax", i.e., tax determined on the basis of regular assessment so far as such tax relates to income subject to advance tax. The evaluation of the current income and the determination of the assessed income had to be made in terms of the statutory scheme comprising Section 115J/115JA of the Act. Hence, levying of interest was inescapable. The assessee was bound to pay advance tax under the said scheme of the Act. Section 115J/115JA of the Act were special provisions which provided that where in the case of an assessee, the total income as computed under the Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income of the assessee shall be deemed to be an amount equal to 30% of such book profit. The object is to tax zerotax companies. 8. Section 115J was inserted by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988. This section was in force from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1991. After 1.4.1991, Section 115JA was inserted by Finance Act of 1996 w.e.f. 1.4.1997. After insertion of Section 115JA, Section 115JB was inserted by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001. 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 pre-requisite condition for applicability of

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

Section 234B is that 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. 9. The question which remains to be considered is whether the assessee, which is a MAT Company, was not in a position to estimate its profits of the current year prior to the end of the financial year on 31st March. In this connection the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 519 and, according to the Karnataka High Court, the profit as computed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 had to be prepared and thereafter the book profit as contemplated under Section 115J of the Act had to be determined and then, the liability of the assessee to pay tax under Section 115J of the Act arose, only if the total income as computed under the provisions of the Act was less than 30% of the book profit. According to the Karnataka High Court, this entire exercise of computing income or the book profits of the company could be done only at the end of the financial year and hence the provisions of Sections 207, 208, 209 and 210 (predecessors of Sections 234B and 234C) were not applicable until and unless the accounts stood audited and the balance sheet stood prepared, because till then even the assessee may not know whether the provisions of Section 115J would be applied or not. The Court, therefore, held that the liability would arise only after the profit is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, interest under Sections 234B and 234C is not leviable in cases where Section 115J applied. This view of the Karnataka

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. case was not shared by the Gauhati High Court in Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1999] 239 ITR 862 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Itarsi Oil and Flours (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2001) 250 ITR 686 as also by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.reported in [2003] 130 Taxman 730 which decided the issue in favour of the Department and against the assessee. It appears that none of the assesses challenged the decisions of the Gauhati High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as Bombay High Court in the Supreme Court. However, it may be noted that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. was confined to Section 115J of the Act. The Order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition in limine filed by the Department against Kwality Biscuits Ltd. is reported in [2006] 284 ITR 434. Thus, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits stood affirmed. However, the Karnataka High Court has thereafter in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006] 154 Taxman 547 distinguished its own decision in case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (supra) and held that Section 115JB, with which we are concerned, is a self-contained code pertaining to MAT, which imposed liability for payment of advance tax on MAT companies and, therefore, where such companies defaulted in payment of advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB, it was liable to pay interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. Thus, it can be concluded that interest under Sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. For the aforestated reasons, Circular No. 13/2001 dated 9.11.2001 issued by CBDT reported in 252 ITR(St.)50 has no application. Moreover, in any event, para 2 of that Circular itself indicates that a large number of companies liable to be taxed under MAT provisions of Section 115JB were not making advance tax payments. In the said circular, it has been clarified that Section 115JB is a self- contained code and thus, all companies were liable for payment 18

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO

of advance tax under Section 115JB and consequently provisions of Sections 234B and 234C imposing interest on default in payment of advance tax were also applicable." 7. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.” Hence, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of JCIT vs.

Rolta India Ltd. (supra) has decided this issue on merit after

considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of

Kwality Biscuits Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 519 and held that the interest u/s

234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect

of the tax payable u/s 115JA and 115JB. Following the decisions of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. (supra),

Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana

High Court cited above we do not find any error or illegality in the

impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/12/2017

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/12/2017. *Santosh. 19

ITA No. 794&795/JP/2017 M/s GIE Jewels V ITO आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s GIE Jewels, F-33, Phase-2, SEZ RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax officer, Ward-2(1), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 794 & 795/JP/2017} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत