VENKATESWARA HATCHARIES LTD vs. JT COMMISSIONER OF I.T.[ASSTS]

lr.I THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAi,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEfuIBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 545 0F 2006 lncome tax Tribunar Appear under Section 260-4 of the rncome Tax Act, '196'1 , against the order of the rncome Tax Appefiate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in rrA No. 594 lHt gg for Assessment year 1995 -96 dated 30-.r 1-2005 preferred against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appears), rv, Hvderabad dated 01-06-1999 in rrA No 1.175 /JC sR s / crr (A) / 98-99 preferred against the order of the Joint commissioner of lncome tax, (Assts ) speciar Range-S, Hyderabad, dated 13-11-1998 in GtR No. V_/4/SR_5. Between: Venkateswara Hatcharies Ltd, Hyderabad with its Regd. office venkateswara House, Hyderabad. ..,APPELLANT AND Joint Commissioner of l.T.[Assts.], Special Range _5, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appeilant: SRl. y. KOTESWARA RAO, COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTTNG FOR J.V. PRASAD (Sr. Sc FOR INCOME TAX) The Court delivered the following Judgment

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE J.SREENTVAS RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.545 of2Oo6 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Atok Arodhe) Mr. Y.Koteswara Rao learned counsel representing Mr. Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Senior Standing Counsel representing Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the responden t. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, i 96 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year 1995-96. Ttre appeal was admitted on following substantial questions.of law: "L. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding t.l-at no appeal is maintainable :uls.246A/246 of I.T.Act in respect of an order '-7

passed u/s- 154 of the I.T.Act against cornputalion ancl le\,y of interest t/ s.2348 alrd u/s.234c of the I.T.Act 196 1? 2. Whether. on the facts a.:nd in the circumstances of the case, the ler.y of interest u / s.234-B of the LT.Acr ar Rs.77,23,322/- arrd u/s.234_C at Rs.14,52,188/- is justified in law?" 3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 43D of the Act to the tune of Rs.24,95,360/-. The assessee had made certain advance payments in respect of RTO tax, Group Gratuity and superannuation in previous year relevant to the assessment yex 1994-95. In the assessment for the aJoresaid assessment yea-r, the claim of the assessee was disallowed on the ground that the liability did not accrue in that year. The assessee therefore requested the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment of the year under consideration i.e., Assessment year 1995-96 and to allow the claim. The Assessing Officer however by an order dated 13.11.1998 passed under Section 154 of the Act disallowed the claim and recomputed the interest under Sections 234A, 2348 and234C of the Act on the basis of income determined under Section 154 of the Act.

3 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal The CommissioneroflncomeTax(Appeals)IV,Hyderabadbyan order dated 01.06.1999 dismissed the appeal' Being aggr-ieved' the assessee filed al appeal before the Income Tax Apoellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal')' The Tribunal has a-ffirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (ApPeals)' Hence, this aPPeal' 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at Iength. 6. The assessee has not denied its liability to pay interest under Section 2348 of the Act' The dispute only relates to computation of interest' The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has assigned cogent and valid reasons for computation of interest and has placed reliance on decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in M'G'Brothers v' CITI and CIT v. Bankatlal Gopikishanz as well as decision of Supreme Court in Central Provinces Ore Co' Ltd' v' CIT3 and has a-ffirmed the ord.er passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' I I I ) I 154 ITR 695 2 154 ITR 713 3 (1986) 3 SCC 461 I

I i24ia 7 . For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. B. In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// "-.i3,i,TXXffS, o R RA SECTION OFFICER T kul/gh j #Jll;:"1;j:r^" rribunar' Hvderabad Bench, Hvderabad , Ils",jB'# ;;;:[H::1311, "]",.1 #ff[.,," . 4. One CC to SRl. y. RAT 5. one cc to sRr. , , "*T1**' Advocate fopuc] 6. Two cD copies |'ASAD (sr' sc FoR INcoME TAX) Advocate topucj a ....,.,,i ...,' '.]

f / HIGH COURT DATED:2811112024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.545 of 2006 DISMISSING THE ITTA r g ,ii,',r 2025 \".*oo' ._.-,1:-.__:: C,, .\ .t Ct.,EO. \ w