S.C : This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dt. 20th Sept., 1999, passed by the IT Settlement Commission holding that for the asst. yr. 1993-94 waiver of interest chargeable under s. 234B

Supreme Court Of India

CIT vs. Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers & Ors.

Sections 234B, 245D(4)

Asst. Year 1993-94

M.B. Shah & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 411 to 414 of 2003

14th January, 2003

Counsel Appeared

R.P. Bhatt with Ms. Neera Gupta & B.V. Balram Das, for the Appellant : Rajiv Tyagi, for the Respondents

ORDER

By the court :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000 as costs because of the delay of 247 days in filing these special leave petitions. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dt. 20th Sept., 1999, passed by the IT Settlement Commission holding that for the asst. yr. 1993-94 waiver of interest chargeable under s. 234B of the IT Act, 1961, is restricted to 50 per cent. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the said order is illegal and erroneous, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1 : (2002) 1 SCC 633 and also the decision rendered by this Court in C.A. Nos. 7966-7967 of 1996 entitled CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers on 17th Dec., 2002 [reported at (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 362—Ed.].

As against this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the judgments rendered by this Court in Ghaswala’s case (supra) as well as in Hindustan Bulk Carriers case (supra), the Court has not considered Expln. 1 under s. 234B of the IT Act and, therefore, the said issue requires reconsideration.

In our view, after the pronouncement of the judgment in Ghaswala’s case (supra), it is not open to us to reconsider the same as it has been specifically held that the Settlement Commission has no power to waive mandatory interest as contemplated under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act.

In this view of the matter, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission is set aside. It would be open to the Revenue to recover interest as provided under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.

[Citation : 264 ITR 564]

Malcare WordPress Security