High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Kishan Lal (HUF)
Sections 234A, 234B
D.K. Jain & Sharda Agarwal, JJ.
ITA No. 155 of 2002
21st August, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Jagdish Rai Goel, for the Appellant : P.C. Sharada, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
This is an appeal by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B” (for short, “the Tribunal”), dt. 23rd Aug., .2001, deleting the interest charged under ss. 234A and 234B of the Act.
2. We find that while granting relief to the assessee, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 : (2001) 247 ITR 209, wherein two decisions of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Pat) 368 : (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex vs. CIT (1997) 137 CTR (Pat) 376 : (1996) 222 ITR 44 (Pat) have been affirmed. In Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex vs. CIT (1997) 137 CTR (Pat) 376 : (1996) 222 ITR 44 (Pat), while analysing the provisions of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C vis-a-vis s. 156 of the Act, it was held that notice of demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is an order in the assessment order for levying interest. This view has been upheld by the apex Court in CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra). It is pertinent to note that a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (supra) has again reiterated the view taken by the Division Benches in the aforenoted cases. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no direction in the assessment order for charging of interest under ss. 234A and 234B of the Act. In view of the aforenoted authoritative pronouncements, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed.
[Citation : 258 ITR 359]
