Punjab And Haryana : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the interest charged under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961, by directing to appropriate the seized cash towards advance tax when the provisions of s. 132B on determination of liability at the time of regular assessment?

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana

CIT vs. Aridhaman Jain

Section 256(2)

G.S. Singhvi & Iqbal Singh, JJ.

IT Case No. 62 of 1996

13th March, 1997

Counsel Appeared

R.P. Sawhney with Rajesh Bindal, for the Revenue : A.K. Mittal, for the Assessee.

JUDGMENT

G.S. SINGHVI, J. :

This is a petition under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this Court :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the interest charged under s. 215 of the IT Act, 1961, by directing to appropriate the seized cash towards advance tax when the provisions of s. 132B on determination of liability at the time of regular assessment?”

By placing reliance on CIT vs. Mahesh Munjal (HUF) (1996) 222 ITR 87 (P&H) Shri R.P. Sawhney submitted that the question framed by the petitioner should be referred to the High Court. On the other hand, Shri Mittal invited our attention to the orders passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee and the application filed by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and argued that after having adjusted the amount recovered from the petitioner during the raid towards the advance tax payable by the petitioner, the assessing authority could not charge interest from the petitioner by invoking s. 215 of the Act. After having thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and having perused the orders passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises in this petition. The Tribunal has rightly held that after adjusting the amount recovered from the petitioner towards the advance tax, the assessing authority could not invoke section 215 for charging interest from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not convince us that the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any error of law.Consequently, we hold that no referable question of law arises in this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

[Citation : 256 ITR 777]

Malcare WordPress Security