PRITHVIRAJ CHOUHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI R. T. Thanewala, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, on advance copy.

(2.) HEARD on admission. This order shall also govern disposal of (I. T. A. No. 17 of 2003--Prithviraj Chouhan v. CIT ; I. T. A. No. 18 of 2003--Prithviraj Chouhan v. CIT ; I. T. A. No. 19 of 2003--Prithviraj Chouhan v. CIT ; I. T. A. No. 20 of 2003--Rajendra Kumar Chouhan v. CIT ; I. T. A. No. 21 of 2003-Prem Kishore Chouhan v. CIT; I. T. A. No. 22 of 2003--Prem Kishore Chouhan v. CIT and I. T. A. No. 26 of 2003--Prem Kishore Chouhan v. CIT], as they arise out of the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench.

(3.) ALL these appeals have been preferred by the assessee under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act" ). The original order by the Tribunal was passed in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The said order of the Tribunal was based on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. The Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions contained in Sections 234a and 234b of the Act. The said judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court on August 1, 2000. Subsequent to this judgment, an Explanation 1 has been substituted in Section 234b of the Act with effect from April 1, 1989, by the Finance Act, 2001. The said Explanation has been made effective retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1989. By this Explanation 1 it has been clearly mentioned that the "assessed" tax means the tax on the total income determined under Sub-section (1) of Section 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII of any income, which is subject to such deduction or collection. So by legal fiction Explanation 1 was made applicable even to those cases, which were decided on and after April 1, 1989. Admittedly, this Explanation 1 substituted with effect from April 1, 1989, in Section 234b escaped the notice of the Tribunal. The same was brought to the notice by the Revenue by filing an application under Section 254 (2) of the Act. A notice of the same was issued to the asses-see since it was found that it was a mistake apparent from the record, therefore, the same has been rectified and the impugned order has been passed, whereby it has been directed that the appellant would be liable to pay interest on the assessed income. It is this order of the Tribunal passed in the rectification application, which is in challenge before us.