JAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) CM . No. 23598 -CII of 2006 This is an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 117 day's delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by the affidavit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. IT Appeal No. 600 of 2006
(2.) IN this appeal by the assessee under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the order of the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "G", Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in ITA No. of law arise for consideration of this Court : "1. Whether the appellant having paid the tax payable as per return, to visit him with a liability of interest which he could not have imagined and as held in J.K. Synthetic's case, would be asking him to do the rare impossible ? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified to dispose of the matter in the case of pendency of Insilco's case before the Delhi High Court as remanded by the Hon'ble apex Court ? 3. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified to impose interest on solely depending on amendment of Expln. 1 to s. 143B in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetic's case ? 4. Whether in view of the fact that the return of the appellant had been accepted under s. 143(1) of the Act, interest could be charged even on the basis of the amended Explanation when it specifically defines assessed tax as the tax on total income determined under sub -s. (1) of s. 143 of the Act -
(3.) THE facts as narrated in the statement of case are that the assessee filed a return of income for asst. yr. 1991 -92 declaring a loss of Rs. 31,130 and advance tax of Rs. 1,37,808 was paid. The case of the assessee was processed under the assessee at Rs. 12,17,990 which was rectified to Rs. 11,86,330 under s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice of demand was issued in which interest had also been charged under s. 234B of the Act. The assessee moved an advance tax paid is less than 90 per cent of the assessed tax, the interest under s. 234B of the Act is chargeable. The interest charged under s. 234B of the Act. Aggrieved with the same, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and s. 234B of the Act to be proper. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was in error in reversing the order of CIT(A) thereby holding the assessee exigible to interest under s. 234B of the Act especially when the assessee had filed return of loss and was not liable to pay advance tax. According to the learned counsel, the assessee had been incurring losses in the past and it could not foresee that the positive income would accrue during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1991 -92 and, therefore, there was no liability to pay advance tax and consequently no interest under s. 234B of the Act could be levied. Reliance had been placed on the apex Court judgments in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CTO (1994) 119 CTR (SC) 222 : AIR 1994 SC 2393, CIT and Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 and a judgment of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Pat) 368 : (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat).;