Court Confirms Mandatory Interest Payments in Tax Assessment Orders; Petition Dismissed Without Costs.

The court upheld the validity of the assessment orders dated March 31, 1993, and April 11, 2001, as they included Form ITNS-150, which specified interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, thus meeting statutory requirements. The substitution of "may" with "shall" in these sections rendered interest payment mandatory. The petitioner's arguments were dismissed, and the writ petition was rejected without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is the requirement of law that the specific provision under which the interest is to be charged should be mentioned in the assessment order or notRs.
2. Whether it is sufficient for the Assessing Officer merely to state in the assessment order that "the interest be charged in accordance with law"Rs.
3. Whether, if the relevant provision of law is not indicated in the assessment order, the Income-tax Department can still charge the interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act or notRs.
4. Whether Form ITNS-150, where the provision of law is clearly indicated and the interest amount is clearly computed, attached to the assessment order, should be read as a part of the assessment order or notRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Specific Provision Mention in Assessment Order:
The court examined whether the specific provision under which interest is charged needs to be mentioned in the assessment order. The petitioner argued that the orders dated March 31, 1993, and April 11, 2001, were non-speaking as they did not specifically mention sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. The court, however, found that the assessment order was accompanied by Form ITNS-150, which clearly indicated the interest charged under the specified sections. The Supreme Court's ruling in Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC) was cited, establishing that Form ITNS-150 is part of the assessment order.

2. Sufficiency of "Interest Be Charged in Accordance with Law" Statement:
The court considered whether the statement "charge interest as per law" in the assessment order suffices. The petitioner contended that such a statement is insufficient without specifying the sections of the Act. The court disagreed, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyankumar Ray, which held that the computation of tax and interest can be detailed in a separate form attached to the assessment order, as long as it is signed by the Income-tax Officer.

3. Charging Interest Without Specific Provision Indicated:
The court evaluated if interest could still be charged if the specific provision is not mentioned in the assessment order. The respondents argued that the accompanying Form ITNS-150, which detailed the interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, should be considered part of the assessment order. The court agreed, stating that the form's inclusion and the officer's signature met the statutory requirements, thus allowing the interest to be charged.

4. Form ITNS-150 as Part of the Assessment Order:
The court reviewed whether Form ITNS-150 should be read as part of the assessment order. The petitioner relied on the Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 72 (Patna) case, where the assessment order did not mention interest, and the demand notice did not specify the provision under which interest was charged. The court distinguished this case, noting that in the present case, Form ITNS-150 was attached to the assessment order and clearly indicated the interest charged under the relevant sections. The Supreme Court in Kalyankumar Ray confirmed that such a form is part of the assessment order.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessment orders dated March 31, 1993, and April 11, 2001, were valid as they met the statutory requirements by including Form ITNS-150, which specified the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The substitution of "may" with "shall" in these sections made the payment of interest mandatory. The petitioner's contentions were dismissed, and the writ petition was rejected with no order as to costs.

---