TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a sister of one Late Sri.V.S.Ranganathan (in short 'assessee'), who was assessed to income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). (ii) For Assessment years (AY) 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, assessments had been framed that involved capital gains on the sale of a property at Uthandi Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, admeasuring 23.17 acres (in short 'property'/'property in question'). (iii) The assessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MOU') on 12.12.2010 with a company by name, Shreyas Investments (in short 'Company') for sale of the property in question for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,21,65,21,000/-. (iv) The sale had taken place over the course of the three assessment years in question and the petitioner had computed and paid capital gains for each of the years, prior to which advance tax had also been paid in the financial years relevant to assessment years in question. (v) The consideration received for the lands sold and the capital gains offered are tabulated as under: AY Extent of land sold Consideration received Capital gains offered 2011-12 20,471....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the aforesaid order. (xv) Consequently, a portion of the same income that had been brought to tax in the subsequent two years were directed to be excluded, to avoid double taxation. (xvi) Effect was given to the order of the first appellate authority on 28.03.2019, the assessing authority passing separate orders in respect of assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. (xvii) The orders giving-effect determined the total tax and interest payable in respect of AY 2011-12 at a figure of Rs.40,78,17,870/-. (xviii) Refund of a sum of Rs.30,50,88,980/- was determined for AY 2012-13 and adjusted as against the demand for AY 2011-12. (xix) Likewise, the order giving-effect for AY 2013-14 determined a refund of a sum of Rs.1,97,23,600/- and adjusted the same as against the demand for AY 2011-12. (xx) The petitioner sought an adjustment of refunds arising in the latter two years with the demand arising for AY 2011-12, and after adjustment, the net tax payable was determined at a sum of Rs.8,30,05,290/-. (xxi) The total demand of a sum of Rs.40.78 crores for AY 2011-12, includes interest under Section 234 B of a sum of Rs.19,43,57,718/. (xxii) Since the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therwise,- (i) interest shall be calculated in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section up to the date on which the tax is so paid, and reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section; (ii) thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax. 4. Stress is laid by the petitioner on the use of the phrase 'or otherwise' in sub-section (2) of Section 234B to state that both self-assessment tax as well as other amounts paid by the assessee prior to completion of regular assessment under Section 143(3) can be considered for reduction from assessed tax for charge of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Reliance is placed on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. LilaVati Bai V. State of Bombay (AIR 1957 SC 521) and a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137). 5. Per contra, Mr.Prabhuhas stoutly defended the impugned order arguing that there is no situation whereby advance tax payments for one year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies on a decision in the case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Atlas Cycle Industries ((1989) 46 Taxman 315 (Punjab & Haryana)), which, in his opinion, supports the impugned order. 10. It is an admitted position that the advance taxes relevant to AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 have been paid in time, in the course of financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The re-assessments in this case transpired on 29.12.2017. 11. The provisions of Section 234B provide for interest in defaults in payment of advance tax. Sub-section (2) thereof, includes for the purpose of determination of the amount of advance tax paid, any amounts remitted under Section 140A as self-assessment tax, and any other amount paid, 'otherwise'. 12. The charge of interest under Section 234 B is mandatory and to compensate in delay in payment of advance tax as has been categorically settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Anjum Ghaswala (252 ITR 1). Thus, there is no doubt in my mind that the request for waiver is to be considered strictly in light of the statutory prescription. 13. The use of the word 'otherwise' has been considered by the Apex Court in Smt. LilaVati Bai V. State of Bombay in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to cover all possible ways in which a vacancy may occur. Generally speaking, a tenant's occupation of his premises ceases when his tenancy is terminated by acts of parties or by operation of law or by eviction by the landlord or by assignment or transfer of the tenant's interest. But the legislature, when it used the words "or otherwise", apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the. meaning of the preceding clauses, for example, a case where the tenant's occupation has ceased as a result of trespass by a third party. The legislature, in our opinion, intended to cover all possible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasons whatsoever. Hence, far from using those words ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses of the explanation, the legislature used those words in an all-inclusive sense. No decided case of any court, holding that the words "or otherwise" have ever been used in the sense contended for on behalf of the petitioner, has been brought to our notice. On the other hand, by way of illustration of decisions to the contrary may be cited the case of Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co. In that case the Court of Appeal had to consider the ....