Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2014(O&M) -1- IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2014(O&M) Date of Order: 29.09.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ludhiana ..Appellant Versus Sh. Sandeep Jain C/o Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills, Ludhiana. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) C.M.No.16670-CII of 2014 Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 24 days in re-filing appeal. We have heard counsel for appellant and as sufficient cause has been shown, allow application and condone delay of 24 days in re-filing appeal. C.M.No.16671-CII of 2014 Allowed as prayed for. Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2014 revenue is before us challenging rectification order dated 08.10.2012(Annexure-AII), passed by Assessing Officer, order dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure A-IV) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), Ludhiana, as well as order dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure A-V), passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh on 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2017 14:32:28 ::: Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2014(O&M) -2- following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in law in observing that amount seized under Section 132 can be appropriated towards advance tax liability without appreciating fact that advance tax does not constitute existing liability as per specific provision of Section 132B. 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating fact that amount seized under Section 132B can only be adjusted against existing liability and not against advance tax liability. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein it has been held that AO was not justified in charging consequential interest under Section 234B. Counsel for revenue submits that only question that revenue presses is chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e., question no.3. Counsel for revenue submits that though Tribunal has answered this question against revenue by placing reliance upon judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.36 of 2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashok Kumar, (2011) 334 ITR 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2017 14:32:29 ::: Income Tax Appeal No.261 of 2014(O&M) -3- 355 (P&H), it has ignored explanation (2) to Section 132B of Act, which makes assessee liable for interest. We have heard counsel for appellant, perused impugned orders and considered argument advanced by counsel for revenue. Tribunal has answered question of chargeability of interest, against revenue by relying upon judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.36 of 2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashok Kumar) (supra). argument by counsel for revenue, based upon explanation (2) to Section 132B of Act disregards fact that explanation came into force on 01.06.2013, whereas present case relates to assessment year 2008-09. This apart explanation is not retrospective in operation and is not referred to as ground of appeal much less has it been framed as substantial question of law. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, question no.3 having already been answered against revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.36 of 2004 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashok Kumar, (2011) 334 ITR 355 (P&H), appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE September 29, 2014 (AMIT RAWAL) nt JUDGE 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2017 14:32:29 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Sandeep Jain