COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. EMILIO RUIZ BERDEJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), are against the order dt. 27th June, 2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal" for short), Pune Bench, Pune in the Income Tax appeals arising out of assessments meant for the asst. yr. 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. V/s. CIT, 2007 211 CTR 545. Whereas second question stands answered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of CIT and Anr. V/s. Pranoy Roy and Anr.,2009 222 CTR 6. 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: