Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
1] All these appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are (‘the Act’ for short) against the order dated 27.6.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’ for short), Pune Bench Pune in the Income Tax Appeals arising assessments meant for the assessment year 2001- 02 and raising three questions of law.
2] Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent agree that first two questions sought to be raised in all these group of appeals are covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The first question stands answered in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2007 (293) ITR 226 (SC). Whereas second question stands answered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Vs. Pranoy Roy and Anr., reported in 2009 (309) ITR 231 (SC). On this backdrop the first two questions can hardly be said to be the substantial questions of law warranting consideration afresh at the hands of this Court.
3] Having said so, we are now required to consider third question, which revolves around interpretation of Sections 234B and 234C of the Act resulting from the failure on the part of the assessee to pay Advance Tax which in our view needs consideration. Hence appeal stands admitted to adjudicate upon the third question reading as under:
(iii) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to pay advance tax and hence section 234B and 234C were rightly invoked”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
