Court allows condonation of 24-day appeal delay. Revenue's challenge on rectification orders dismissed.

The court allowed the appellant's application to condone a 24-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The revenue's challenge against rectification orders was based on various issues including interest under Section 234B. The court ruled against the revenue, noting that the explanation to Section 132B was not retrospective. As the issue was not framed as a substantial question of law and had been previously decided against the revenue, the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in re-filing the appeal, Rectification order challenge, Chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C.

Delay in re-filing the appeal:
The appellant sought to condone a 24-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The court, after hearing the counsel and finding sufficient cause, allowed the application and condoned the delay.

Rectification order challenge:
The revenue challenged rectification orders dated 08.10.2012, 12.03.2013, and 20.09.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, respectively. The substantial questions of law raised included the appropriation of seized amount towards advance tax liability under Section 132, adjustment against existing liability under Section 132B, and the justification of charging consequential interest under Section 234B. The revenue pressed for the chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C, emphasizing the Tribunal's reliance on a previous judgment and disregarding explanation (2) to Section 132B.

Chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C:
The Tribunal had ruled against the revenue regarding the chargeability of interest under Section 234B, citing a previous judgment. The revenue contended that the Tribunal overlooked explanation (2) to Section 132B, making the assessee liable for interest. However, the court noted that the explanation was not retrospective and came into force after the relevant assessment year. As the issue was not framed as a substantial question of law and had been previously decided against the revenue in another case, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

---