M/S. ART GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative invited our attention to the fact that the issue involved in these appeals regarding charging of interest under Section 234B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), whereas the Assessing Officer has charged interest under Section 234B(3) of the Act. It was submitted that the issue has already been decided in the case of M/s. BNG Tradelinks P. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, in vide order dated 27.04.2018 and in the present appeals the same can be followed.

The learned DR supported the contentions of the learned AR.

We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material on record. We find that the Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order dated 27.04.2018 in ITA 5063/Del/2015, has already decided the issue against the assessee. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Tribunal are reproduced as under: “5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions on either side. Insofar as facts are concerned, absolutely, there is no dispute. Subsequent to the search operations, the assessee and the group concerns filed an application before the ITSC u/s 245D(1) on 16.11.2011 and the ITSC passed an order in all the group concern cases u/s 245D(4) on 25.9.2013. Department gave effect to the said order of the ITSC by passing order dated 2.7.2013 where under the interest was levied u/s 234B(1). Assessee sought rectification of the same by application u/s 154 of the Act and it was rejected.

There is no dispute that there was no order passed u/s 147 or 153A/153C of the Act. Assessee failed to 5066/Del/2015 & 5067/Del/2015 demonstrate before us that the learned CIT(A) committed any error in his observation that in all the decisions relied upon by the assessee there was re-assessment framed u/s 147 or 153A of the Act and not u/s 245 of the Act. So also it is not the contention of the assessee that in Omaxe Auto case(supra), the assessee had computed the interest u/s 234B(3) of the Act and 234B(1) of the Act. Further the chargeability of interest u/s 234B(1) of 234B(3) had not cropped up for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brij Lai (supra). It, therefore, goes without saying that learned CIT(A) was perfectly right in observing that the Hon'ble Apex Court had not altered the principle laid down in the case of Hindustan Bulk Carrier (supra) and he had rightly followed the same. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Id. CIT(A). The ground of appeal