DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI vs. VIKING MARITIME INC., NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 8/1/2016, passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals)-43, New Delhi for quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) read with 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2009-10. In the grounds, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:-

(i) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that charging of interest u/s 234B is a debatable issue and does not constitute a mistake apparent from record, and thus beyond the scope of provisions of Section 154 Income Tax Act, when the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act has been held as statutory and automatic by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum MH Ghaswala & others (2001) 252 ITR 1(SC) and therefore, non charging of interest u/s 234B clearly constitutes a mistake apparent from record. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act when the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in GE Packaged Power has not attained finality as in the review application filed by the Department, the Hon’ble Apex Court has recalled its earlier order of dismissing the SLP against the decision of the Hon’ble High Court.

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 16/4/2016 in the quantum proceedings had deleted the entire additions and in the order giving effect, no interest under section 234B has been charged by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue have become infructuous.

3. The ld. D.R. also admitted that no interest under section 234B has been charged after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal.

4. In view of the aforesaid fact that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the quantum proceedings for the impugned assessment year and the Assessing Officer has also given effect to such order whereby the Assessing Officer after giving due credit of TDS amount and other tax and 234B, then the issue of levy of interest has become infructuous. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue is held as infructuous and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th September, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- [G.D. AGRAWAL] [AMIT SHUKLA] PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18th September, 2017 JJ:3108 Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT

5. DR Assistant Registrar Date 1. Draft dictated on 2. Draft placed before author 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File comes back to PS/Sr. PS 8. Uploaded on 9. File sent to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the AR 11. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 12. Date of dispatch of Order.