R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Mr. Hari Narain Soni, the petitioner ('the assessee', for short) has challenged the orders dated 31.03.1993 and 11.04.2001 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income -Tax, the respondent No. 1 by the former order, dated 31.03.1993, the respondent No. 1 had computed the taxable income of the assessee and had charged an interest under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income -tax Act, 1961, (in short, "the Act"). By the latter order, dated 11.04.2001, the respondent No. 1 had revised the total taxable income of the assessee and had created a demand of Rs. 37,795/ -. A computation sheet attached with order dated 11.04.2001 reveals that interest was levied under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing of jewellery. According to the assessee, he was regularly submitting his returns to the Income -Tax Department. For the Assessment Year 1990 -91, the assessee had declared his income as Rs. 45,000/ -. However, on 17.09.1989, his residential premises were searched by the officers of the Income -Tax Department and certain documents were recovered. On the basis of the documents, a notice under Sec. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee had appeared before the respondent No. 1 from time to time. However, vide order dated 31.03.1993, the respondent No. 1 had computed the taxable income at Rs. 12,09,130/ -. The respondent No. 1 computed the tax at Rs. 6,30,142/ - and charged interest at Rs. 4,99,175/ -. However, according to the assessee, in the order dated 31.03.1993, no specific direction was given indicating that the interest was being charged under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The order merely directed, "charge interest as per law".
(2.) Since, the assessee was aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.1993, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income -Tax (appeals). Vide order dated 18.02.1994, certain relief was granted by the commissioner Income -Tax (Appeals) to the assessee. Against the order dated 18.02.1994, the assessee as well as the respondent -department preferred appeals before the learned Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (in short, "the learned Tribunal"). Vide order dated 12.02.2001, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the parties. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 21.03.2001 and created an additional income of Rs. 1,43,888/ - alongwith interest. The assessee moved an application under Sec. 154 of the Act and in pursuance of which the respondent No. 1 passed an order on 11.04.2001 under Sec. 143(3)/250/154/253/154 of the Act and computed the total revised income at Rs. 3,19,000/ - and created a demand of Rs. 37,795/ -. Further, the case of the assessee is that in the order dated 11.04.2001, no specific direction has been given to charge the interest under Sec. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. However, the assessee admits that in the computation -sheet attached to the said order it is clearly mentioned that interest at Rs. 11,958/ -, Rs. 1,02,462/ - and Rs. 233/ - is being charged under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act respectively. Thereafter, on 07.09.2001, the assessee, moved an application before the respondent No. 1 and requested that the interest which is wrongly levied/charged under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act should be cancelled/deleted/waived. Since, the respondent No. 1 did not pay any heed to the said application, the assessee has filed the present petition before this Court challenging the orders mentioned above.
(3.) Mr. J.K. Ranka, the learned counsel for the assessee, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the orders dated 31.03.1993 and 11.04.2001 are non -speaking orders. For, the orders do not specifically mention that the interest is being levied under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Secondly, neither of these two orders reveal the "satisfaction" of respondent No. 1 for levying the interest under aforementioned Ss. of the Act. Thirdly, it is not sufficient in the eyes of law for the orders to merely read "charge interest as per law". According to the learned counsel, the requirement of law is that the specific provisions of the Act have to be mentioned and the interest has to be computed and mentioned in the order itself. Fourthly, in case, the orders do not mention the specific provision of law under which the interest is being levied, then interest cannot be levied by the Department. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the cases of Ranchi Club v/s. CIT : (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat.), CIT v/s. Ranchi Club : (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), Smt. Tej Kumari & Ors. v/s. CIT & Ors. : (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Pat.), CIT v/s. Autolite (I) Pvt. Ltd. : (2002) 256 ITR 303 (Raj.) and Zakir Hussain v/s. CIT & anr., (2006) 202 CTR 40 (Raj.).;