TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 143(3) rws 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.15.2.2011. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer observing that interest u/s. 220(2) and 234D of the Act had not been charged, rectified the order of assessment for A.Y. 2007-08 by an order dt.27.7.2011 passed under Section 154 of the Act, inter alia, charging the assessee interest amounting to Rs. 12,77,77,868 u/s. 220(2) of the Act holding as under :- " The order under Section 143(3) rws 144C was passed on 15.2.2011. It is seen that in this order interest under Section 234B and interest under Section 220 on delay of payment of Rs. 12,77,77,868 has been not levied. Also there is a mistake in calculation of interest under Section 234D. As these are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The first proviso to section 220(2) of the Act provides for reduction of interest pursuant to rectification order and hence interest cannot be increased pursuant to order under Section 154 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed off the assessee's appeal vide order dt.22.9.2014 allowing the assessee's appeal and cancelling the charge of interest u/s.220(2) of the Act. 3. Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) - IV, Bangalore dt.27.9.2011 for A.Y. 2007-08, has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds :- " 1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the levy of intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the issue involved. The learned Departmental Representative assailed the order of the CIT (Appeals) arguing that the impugned order was wrong on facts, in that the interest u/s.220(2) of the Act has been charged only after the order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed and submitted that the various judicial pronouncements relied on by the CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order are either distinguishable or not applicable to the facts of the case and the issue involved. No submission was put forth before us to substantiate this claim or controvert the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) thereon. 5.2 Per contra, the learned Authorised Representati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctricity Board (260 ITR 84) (SC) (ii) CIT V Manjit Singh Sachdeva (310 ITR 357) (SC) (iii)Spaco Carburattors India Ltd. V Raj Kumar, DCIT reported in 284 ITR 611 (Bom) (iv)Tamil Nadu Magnesite V CIT reported in 196 Taxmann 271 (Mad) In all the above cases, as seen from the extracts reproduced in the CIT (Appeals)'s order, the issue is different from the issue at hand. In the case of Gujarat Electricity Board (supra), the issue was on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to commence proceedings under Section 143(1) of the Act and wherein it was held that as regular assessment proceedings having been commenced by issue of notice under Section 143(2), there is no need for summary proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act for the same period. However, from the computation given in the impugned order under Section 154 of the Act, we find that interest under Section 234B has been charged for the period 1.4.2007 to 15.2.2011, the date of the order of assessment, whereas interest u/s.220(2) of the Act has been charged for the period after passing of the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, i. E. from 1.3.2011 to 11.4.2011 (one month period and from 1.11.2011 to 26.7.2011). 5.3.5 We also find that the assessee had raised the contention before the learned CIT (Appeals) that the proviso to section 220(2) of the Act only provides for reduction of interest charged u/s.220(2) by passing of rectification order under Section 154 of the Act. 5.3.6 ....