TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act without making any adjustments in the returned income and an intimation dated September 13, 1999, was sent to the petitioner. A copy of this intimation has been produced as annexure P1 with the writ petition. As per this intimation, in addition to the tax due, the following interest was levied: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the levy of penal interest in appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, on November 4, 1999. Notices for hearing in the appeal were issued for December 14, 2000, and January 19, 2001, which were not complied with. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated January 19, 2001, in the following terms: "The appeal relates to intimation issued under section 143(1)(a). The only grievance is against charging of interest under section 234A/234B and 234C. 2. The hearing was fixed on December 14, 2000, and January 19, 2001.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arbitrary and violated articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 72 which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. On a query from the Bench as to why the petitioner had not appeared before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shimla, and as to why no further appeal had been preferred before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Shri Mittal stated that the appeal had been filed erroneously as there is no provision for appeal against an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals). There is no explanation for the delay after December, 2000. Still further, the appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in January, 2001, and yet no steps were taken to challenge the levy of penal interest thereafter. In the absence of any explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, for this delay, we are satisfied that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. We may also mention that the writ petition does not disclose as to what was the income as a result of normal computation under the Act. In the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 519, the Karnataka High Court was dealing with a case where income as per the normal computation under the A....