TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act levying interest under sections 234B and 234C even though the income was computed under section 115JA of the Income-tax Act"? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer could levy interest under sections 234B and 234C even though no interest had been levied while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act?" 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the first substantial question of law, as referred to above, does arise for consideration by this court in the present appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23, 1999. The order levying interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act was passed on account of short payment of advance tax on September 12, 2002. 5. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana, the assessee succeeded and the rectification order was set aside. 6. However, in further appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the stand of the Revenue was accepted and the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act was restored. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as on the date when the notice for rectification was issued to the appellant, the legal issue on the basis of which the rectification was sought to be made was debatable, as there was no judgment of the jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the position of law even as on date was the same and now at this stage the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act rectifying the mistake committed in the original order of assessment cannot be faulted with as the same is strictly in conformity with law. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. This court in P. K. Bhardwaj's case [2005] 279 ITR 326, while dealing with a similar situation, opined as under (page 330): "In T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of section 154 of the Act, categorically laid down that a mistake apparent on the reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....93. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on September 24, 1997. The decision by this court in B. M. Parmar, Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT [1999] 235 ITR 679 was rendered on October 27, 1998, sub-section (7) of section 154 prescribes limitation of four years for initiation of action for rectification of a mistake. Therefore, the action for rectification could have been taken by the Assessing Officer up to March 31, 1998, on the basis of the judgment of the jurisdictional court. However, the fact of the matter is that action initiated under section 154 had been finalised much before the judgment of this court in B. M. Parmar's case [1999] 235 ITR 679. Therefore, the Revenue cannot rely on that jud....