2016 (7) TMI 1600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary dispute relates to charging of interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,66,070/-. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts can be summarized as follows. The appellant is an individual, who is deriving income majorly from deposits maintained with the bank and capital gains. The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 20/07/2012, declaring a total income of Rs. 13,91,54,702/-. The said return was subject to processing under section 143(1) of the Act dated 23/11/2012. The only point of dispute by the assessee is that while processing such return under section 143(1) of the Act, interest under section 234C of the Act was levied on account of shortfall ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 234C of the Act was mandatory in nature and that the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bill and Peggy Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 350 ITR 465 (Del) supports the stand of the Revenue. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The liability to pay advance tax enshrined under the Act is based on the principle of 'pay as you earn', as has been aptly noted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bill and Peggy Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Section 234C of the Act prescribes that the advance tax is payable in installments on the dates falling within financial year itself. Any failure or shortfall in payment of such installments attracts interest under section 234C of the Act. In the presen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by the assessee on 17/12/2011 could not have been foreseen by the assessee so as to enable him to estimate such income for the purpose of payment of advance tax on an anterior date, may it be 15/09/2011 or 15/12/2011. In such a situation, the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. (56 ITD 164)(Hyd.), relied upon by the appellant, clearly militates against charging of interest under section 234C of the Act. As per the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, an assessee could not be defaulted for a duty, which was impossible to be performed. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal was also considering levy of interest under section 234C of the Act in a situation where on the relevant dat....