- (1.) PRAKASHKRISHNA ,J 1. Raising a short dispute with regard to compulsory levy of interest under section 234 -B of the Income Tax Act, the revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in ITA No.1506/Del/95 for the assessment year 1991 -92.
(2.) THE assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in manufacturing of tooth powder and its sale. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer made certain additions in the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in the raw material and sale outside the books, vide order dated 14.5.1990. The matter was carried in appeal before CIT(A), Agra Bench, Agra who allowed the appeal in part by the order dated 18.1.1995. Before him, one of the grounds raised was with regard to charge of interest under sections 234 -A, 234 -B and 234 -C. The assessee contended that the interest could not be charged under the aforesaid sections in the absence of any order to this effect in the assessment order. The CIT(A) took the view that no appeal is provided against charge of interest but the Assessing Officer may levy the interest while giving effect to the appellate order. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has failed to mention in the assessment order for charging of any interest and therefore, interest could not be charged from the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal and raised the following substantial question of law for consideration "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in directing the A. O not to charge interest under section 234 -A, 234 -B and 234 -C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of the any direction by the AO in the assessment order?" Heard ShriR.K.Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel for the Department and ShriSuyashAgrawal, learned counsel for the assessee -respondent. Shriupadhayaya, learned standing counsel submits that in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Versus Anjum M.H Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), charging of interest under sections 234 -A, 234 -B and 234 - C is mandatory. Even Settlement Commission could not waive the charging of interest.
(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has been considered by this Court in the case of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 81 of 2002 & 82 of 2002 CIT -II Kanpur versus M/s Deep Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd., Kanpur decided on 3.8.2011 and it has been held that the earlier decision given by the Apex Court in the case of CIT versus Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) still holds the field and unless in the order of Assessing Authority, it is ordered that interest be charged, a notice of demand charging interest cannot be issued. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;