Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1989/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2007-08
Mr. Narendra Kumar Pashupathy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of # 337/61, 2nd Floor, 43rd Cross, Income Tax, S P Road, 9th Main, 5th Block, Circle 7(2)(1), Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. PAN: AAVPN 0728K APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by : Smt. Soumya, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.
Date of hearing : 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 14.8.2017 of CIT(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru, relating to assessment year 2007-08.
The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee reads thus:-
“1. The learned CIT (A) erred in passing the order in the manner he did. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in levying the interest u/s 234B of the Act.
ITA No. 1989/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 3
The learned CIT (A) has also grossly erred in not considering the provisions of sub section(3) of section 234B which is abundantly clear that on the re-assessment that the interest has to be charged from the date of the original order i.e.,143(1) and learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the absence of the order, the AO should have charged from the Date of Assessment order. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. The Assessee is an individual. He owned properties Basavanapura Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. He entered into a Joint development Agreement (JDA) with a developer. In the reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of the property was brought to tax and the action of the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A). In the appellate order, the Assessee had challenged the levy of interest u/s.234-B of the Act. That ground of appeal was held by the CIT(A) to be purely consequential and directed the AO to give consequential relief. Against such a direction of the CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee, who reiterated the stand of the Assessee as reflected in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal. We are of the view that the stand taken by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal is unsustainable because the direction of the CIT(Appeals) holding that levy of interest u/s.234-B is consequential, is a direction which is in accordance with law. If at all the Assessee has any grievance on the manner of charging of interest u/s.234-B of the Act, he can do so only against the order of the AO giving effect to the order of the CIT(Appeals). Otherwise, the law is well settled that levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., 252 ITR 1
ITA No. 1989/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 3
(SC). We therefore find no merit in this appeal by the Assessee and accordingly dismiss the same.
In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed
Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of July, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN) Accountant Member VICE PRESIDENT
Bangalore, Dated, the 17th July, 2019.
/ Desai Smurthy /
Copy to:
The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file
By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.