Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case for Notified Person Under Special Court Act. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961 not chargeable due to assets being vested in Custodian.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which held that the assessee, Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd., a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, is not liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's assets, including bank accounts, were attached and vested in the Custodian under the Special Court Act. The return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06 was due on 31 October 2005 but was filed on 26 February 2007, declaring a total income of Rs.37.54 lacs. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 13 December 2007, determining a total income of Rs.45.73 lacs. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the interest provisions were mandatory. However, the Tribunal, relying on its decision in Orion Travels Private Limited, concluded that interest should not be levied because the assessee had no control over its assets due to the vesting in the Custodian. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Special Court Act does not exempt notified persons from interest liability. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is not chargeable in such circumstances.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C - Notified Person under Special Court Act - The assessee, a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, had its assets vested in the Custodian. The issue was whether interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is chargeable. The Tribunal held that interest is not leviable as the assessee had no control over its assets. The High Court upheld this view, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 is liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal's order that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is not chargeable on the assessee is upheld.

Law Points

  • Interest under Sections 234A
  • 234B
  • 234C of Income Tax Act
  • 1961 not chargeable on notified persons under Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act
  • 1992
  • as assets are vested in Custodian and assessee cannot control payment of taxes
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 110

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3334 OF 2010

2012-03-07

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.S. Sanklecha

Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant, Mr. R.A. Shaikh for the Respondent

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central II, Mumbai

Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Income Tax Appeal against Tribunal order regarding levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Revenue sought to set aside Tribunal's order and uphold levy of interest.

Filing Reason

Revenue aggrieved by Tribunal's decision that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C is not chargeable on notified person under Special Court Act.

Previous Decisions

Commissioner (Appeals) held interest provisions mandatory; Tribunal reversed holding interest not leviable.

Issues

Whether interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is chargeable on a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.

Submissions/Arguments

Revenue argued that the Special Court Act does not exempt notified persons from interest liability under the Income Tax Act. Assessee argued that since assets are vested in Custodian, assessee cannot be liable for interest.

Ratio Decidendi

A notified person under the Special Court Act, whose assets are vested in the Custodian, is not liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee has no control over its assets and cannot be expected to comply with payment timelines.

Judgment Excerpts

The assessee is a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 1992. The assets of the assessee including its bank accounts were attached and vested in the Custodian under the Act. The Tribunal relied upon its decision in the case of Orion Travels Private Limited rendered on 9 October 2009, in coming to the conclusion that interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C should not be levied on the assessee for the Assessment Year under reference.

Procedural History

Return filed late on 26 Feb 2007 for AY 2005-06; assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 13 Dec 2007; Commissioner (Appeals) upheld interest on 29 Aug 2008; Tribunal reversed on 3 Nov 2009; Revenue appealed to High Court on 7 Mar 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 234A, 234B, 234C, 143(3)
  • Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case for Notified Person Under Special Court Act. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961 not chargeable due to assets being vested in Custodian.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remits Pre-Partition Tenants' Claim to High Court in Land Dispute with State of Telangana. The Court held that the earlier judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani did not examine the tenants' claim, and the High Court must decide the writ pet...