- (1.) In both appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law:- In DBITA No. 107/2018 "i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the charge of interest amounting to Rs. 4,36,630/- by the ld. AO u/s 234B of the Act of 1961? ii) Whether the ld. ITAT is right under law while holding the provisions of Sec. 115JC at par with the provisions of Sec. 115JA and 115JB in respect of liability of payment of advance tax prescribed u/s 208 charging of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of non-payment of Advance Tax which cannot be computed without adjustment of total income as provided under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115JC and the application of the provisions of said section only when a report is obtained in the prescribed form from an accountant certifying that the adjusted income and the AMT have been computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIIBA? iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the findings of ld. CIT(A) for confirming the charge of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of AssesseeAppellant who is a person other than a company and paid Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC before filing of the return of income duly audited and alongwith the report of accountant as prescribed under the said provision? iv) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while ignoring the provision of law that tax credit for AMT paid by a person u/s 115JC is not refundable and no interest is payable on tax credit allowed and the tax credit is carried forward and set off in the tax liability of the following years, while the excess advance tax paid by an assessee is refundable with interest after passing of the assessment order by the AO?" In DBITA No. 106/2018 "i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the charge of interest amounting to Rs. 20,14,476/- by the ld. AO u/s 234A & 234B of the Act of 1961? ii) Whether the ld. ITAT is right under law while holding the provisions of Sec. 115JC at par with the provisions of Sec. 115JA and 115JB in respect of liability of payment of advance tax prescribed u/s 208 charging of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of non-payment of Advance Tax which cannot be computed without adjustment of total income as provided under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115JC and the application of the provisions of said section only when a report is obtained in the prescribed form from an accountant certifying that the adjusted income and the AMT have been computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIIBA? iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the findings of ld. CIT(A) for confirming the charge of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of AssesseeAppellant who is a person other than a company and paid Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC before filing of the return of income duly audited and alongwith the report of accountant as prescribed under the said provision? iv) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while ignoring the provision of law that tax credit for AMT paid by a person u/s 115JC is not refundable and no interest is payable on tax credit allowed and the tax credit is carried forward and set off in the tax liability of the following years, while the excess advance tax paid by an assessee is refundable with interest after passing of the assessment order by the AO?";