TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de his order dated 07.11.2008. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised the following effective grounds: "2. That, on facts as well as on law, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Learned Deputy CIT, Circle 11, Kolkata in his order under section 154/251/143(3) dated 7th November,2008 on the fresh demand for the period prior to the date of the said order, even when the said demand was raised for the first time pursuant to the said rectification under section 154/251/143(3). 3. That, on facts as well as on law, the Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of the assessee company." AO while making this addition charged interest u/s. 234B of the Act at Rs.7,87,037/- and u/s. 234C of the Act at Rs.2,45,724/-. The AO also charged interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act at Rs.6,09,232/-. Aggrieved against charging of interest u/s. 220(2) at Rs.6,09,232/- assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) but CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee and restricted the charging of interest at Rs.2,06,280/- as against charged by AO at Rs.6,09,232/-. The CIT(A) restricted the charging of interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act vide para 4 of his order as under: "4. I have considered the findings of the A.O. and the written submission filed by the A.R. The ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are related to charging of interest u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity payable of Rs.25 lakh did not exist at all prior to passing of the order u/s. 154 of the Act. According to him, the liability to pay interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act on this context arises only if such taxes not paid within a period of 30 days from the receipt of notice of demand of the said tax. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2003) 260 ITR 419 (Mad), wherein Hon'ble High Court considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. First ITO (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC) and hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payable was straightaway adjusted even at the time of the assessment against the surtax refund due for the assessment year 1975-76. No question of non-payment of any outstanding demand arose. The question of issuing a notice of demand also did not arise and no notice was in fact issued. The further order made in the year 1990 was wholly misconceived. There was no notice of demand which had remained without compliance and out- standing as on that date. In fact, there was no such notice of demand out- standing even as of 1988 when the amount of the tax was determined at Rs. 1,22,924. The condition precedent which could attract section 220, sub-section (2) were absent. The adjustment made by the Revenue of the amount determined by it as int....