VIJAY KUMAR SABOO (HUF) S/O SRI RAM NIVAS SABOO AND SRI KAMAL KISHORE SABOO (HUF) S/O SRI RAM NIVAS SABOO Vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are by the Assessee against the order of the Tribunal which has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Assessing Authority who have held that Assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 234 -B of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) THE Assessee filed the return on 26.09.1990 under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The order under Section 143(1)(a) dated 24.06.1991 came to be passed accepting the income of Rs. 30,590 -00 filed by the Assessee. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act, on the ground of escapement of income. In pursuance of the notice issued the Assessee filed a revised return on 30.12.1993 showing the income of Rs. 1,50,590 -00. An order came to be passed on such revised return under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.01.1994. in the said order, the Assessing Authority levied interest under Section 234 -B on the difference of the amount by which tax on the total income determined on the basis of the re -assessment or re -computation, vis -a -vis the return filed by the Assessee.

(3.) THESE appeals were admitted on 10.11.2010 to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was light in law in holding that in spite of their admission that intimation under Section 143(1)(a) in an order, the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of Section 234B are applicable? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of reassessment made under Section 147 is assessment made for the first time as envisaged in Explanation 2 to Section 147? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case interest could be charged under Section 234B in the order of reassessment when in the original order No. interest was charged? (iv) Whether interest is to be levied invoking the provision of Section 234B(3) and not Section 234B(1) of Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?