N.L. Kalra, AM. - (1.) THE assessee has filed this appeal against the order of learned CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore dated 22-11-2002.
(2.) The first grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that learned assessing officer was justified in not deleting interest charged under sections 234B, 234C and 154 of the Income Tax Act. Assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) on 19-3-2000. The assessing officer while making the assessment, gave direction for charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C. It was mentioned by the assessing officer that income is being determined under section 115JA and the issue of levying interest under sections 234B and 234C in a case where income is determined under section 115JA has not become final. In spite of this categorical finding in the assessment order, the assessee moved an application under section 154 before the assessing officer. Vide this application under section 154, the assessee contended that interest under sections 234B and 234C cannot be charged in view of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 519 (Kar). This application was rejected by the assessing officer, as according to him, this mistake was not apparent from record. In the assessment order, it was clearly mentioned that charging of interest under sections,234B and 234C in a case where income is determined under section 115JA has not become final.
(3.) THE assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). THE learned CIT(A) observed that decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (supra) is in the context of interpretation of provisions of section 115J. THEre is an important departure from the earlier provisions of section 115J while enacting new section 1155JA. Sub-section (4) of section 115JA mentions that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company mentioned in this section. It was therefore held by the learned CIT(A) that assessing officer was justified in not deleting the interest charged under section 154.;