TEJ KUMARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court took up two sets of writ petitions for analogous hearing, one set of writ petitions were filed by M/s Uday Mistanna Bhandar and one Tej Kumari Devi being CWJC Nos. 3287, 2732 and 2780 of 1995(R). Another set of writ petition were filed by Ranchi Club Ltd. being CWJC Nos. 3494, 3527, 3609, 3562 & 3782 of 1995. The question raised in these writ petitions is with respect to chargeability of interest under Ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by Ranchi Club Ltd. while interpreting the aforesaid sections of the Act had held interest under these sections should not be charged except as per income determined under Ss. 143(3) and 144 of the Act and further held that interest under s. 234A was leviable on the tax on the total income as declared in the return. The said decision is reported as Ranchi Club vs. CIT & Ors. (1996) 131 CTR (Pat) 368 : (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) : TC 43R.740. The correctness of that decision was doubted before the Division Bench by the Revenue. Accordingly, the Division Bench in terms of judgment dt. 2nd July, 1996, passed in CWJC Nos. 3287, 2732 and 2780 of 1995(R), referred the following question for consideration before this Full Bench :

(2.) BEFORE another Division Bench hearing CWJC Nos. 2296, 1495, 1507 and 2144 of 1996(R) the question came for consideration was with respect to chargeability of interest under S. 139(8) and s. 217 of the Act.

(3.) ON the first day of hearing before this Bench learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Revenue informed this Court that against the judgment passed in Ranchi Club's case (supra) the Revenue moved the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 10360/96 and the same was likely to be taken up for hearing and the question involved in the said appeal before the Supreme Court is the same referred to this Bench. On the adjourned day learned counsel produced before us a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal, which shows that after hearing the counsel for the appellants the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and the same were dismissed, vide judgment and order dt. 1st Aug., 2000.