Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal, Firozabad V. Dy. C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra

ITA 22/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2220314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 234B; 147; 246; 132; 144; 154; 139

Judgement Text

N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 471, 472 & 473/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRA L CIRCLE, AGRA ROAD, FIROZABAD. AGRA. (PAN: AAAFN 8487 C) ITA NO. 468/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 LATE SATISH PRAKASH MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRA L CIRCLE, THROUGH L.H & SPOUSE AGRA. SMT. SHEILA RANI MITTAL, R/O.29-30, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. (PAN: ABWPM 1075 G) ITA NO. 469/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. NANNUMAL GLASS WORKS, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRA L CIRCLE, VILLAGE DHOLPURA, AGRA. AGRA ROAD, FIROZABAD. (PAN: AACFN 9921 B) ITA NO. 470/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. PARAS GLASSWARE (P) LTD., VS. D.C.I.T., CEN TRAL CIRCLE, 68, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AGRA. NUNHAI, AGRA. (PAN: AACCP 8075 H) ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 2 ITA NOS. 465 & 466/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEARS : 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S. FARUKHI GLASS INDUSTRIES, VS. D.C.I.T., CEN TRAL CIRCLE, VILLAGE DHOLPURA, AGRA ROAD, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: AAAFF 2306 G) ITA NOS. 29, 30, 31/AGRA/2011, 474 & 475/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEARS : 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S. MEERA GLASS INDUSTRIES, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTR AL CIRCLE, VILLAGE LALAU, AGRA ROAD, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: AABFM 6228 P) ITA NOS. 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEARS : 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 SHRI VED PRAKASH MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, S/O. LATE SIA RM MITTAL, AGRA. 33-39, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. (PAN: ABVPM 1061 E) ITA NOS. 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEARS : 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENT RAL CIRCLE, S/O. LATE SIA RM MITTAL, AGRA. 33-39, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. (PAN: ABIPM 2774 Q) ITA NOS. 16 & 17/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEARS : 2003-04 & 2007-08 SHRI SANJAY PRAKASH MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRA L CIRCLE, 29-30, GANESH NAGAR, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: ADDPM 9611 R) ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 3 ITA NO. 18/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI SANJEEV PRAKASH MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTR AL CIRCLE, 29-30, GANESH NAGAR, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: AHHPM 6020 C) . ITA NOS. 32, 33 & 34/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 SMT. RADHA MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCL E, 33-39, GANESH NAGAR, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: ABVPM 0331 N) ITA NO. 14/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04 SMT. VEENA DEVI MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL C IRCLE, 33-39, GANESH NAGAR, AGRA. FIROZABAD. (PAN: ABVPM 0330 P) ITA NOS. 15/AGRA/2011 & 467/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEARS : 2004-05 & 2007-08 SMT. SHIELA RANI MITTAL, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, W/O. LATE SATISH PRAKASH MITTAL, AGRA. 29-30, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. (PAN: AJUPM 1130 G) (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S.K. GARG, ADVOCATE SHRI SAHIB P. SATSANGEE, C.A. SHRI ASHISH BANSAL, ADVOCATE SHRI SANDEEP AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 4 DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 07.09.2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAI NST DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II , AGRA AS UNDER :- ITA NO/PARTY A.Y. CIT(A) ORDER DATED 471, 472 & 473/AGRA/2010 M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ALL 13.10.2010 468/AGRA/2010 LATE SATAISH PRAKASH MITTAL 2007-08 13.10.2010 469/AGRA/2010 M/S NANNUMAL GLASS WORKS 2007-08 13.10.2010 470/AGRA/2010 M/S PARAS GLASSWARE (P) LTD. 2007-08 13.10.2010 465 & 466/AGRA/2010 M/S FARUKHI GLASS INDUSTRIES 2004-05 & 2007-08 13.10.2010 29, 30, 31/AGRA/2011, 474 & 475/AGRA/2010 M/S MEERA GLASS INDUSTRIES 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2004-05 & 2007-08 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 13.10.2010 13.10.2010 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23/AGRA/2011 SHRI VED PRAKASH MITTAL 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 15.12.2010 15.12.2010 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 15.12.2010 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28/AGRA/2011 SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITTAL 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 18.11.2010 18.11.2010 15.12.2010 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 5 15.12.2010 15.12.2010 16 & 17/AGRA/2011 SHRI SANJAY PRAKASH MITTAL 2003-04 & 2007-08 BOTH 18.11.2010 18/AGRA/2011 SHRI SANJEEV PRAKASH MITTAL 2007-08 18.11.2010 32, 33 & 34/AGRA/2011 SMT. RADHA MITTAL 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ALL 18.11.2010 14/AGRA/2011 SMT. VENA DEVI MITTAL 2003-04 18.11.2010 15/AGRA/2011 & 467/AGRA/2010 SMT. SHIELA RANI MITTAL 2004-05 & 2007-08 18.11.2010 & 13.10.2010 2. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES SUBMITTED THAT TH E GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS LEAD TO THE CASE OF M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS IN IT A NO.471/AGR/2010. FOR KNOWING THE EXACT GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS , ITA NO.471/AG R/2010 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, AGRA WAS WHOL LY UNJUSTIFIED, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN SUST AINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234A COULD ONLY BE WAIVED OR REDUCED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRE CTOR GENERAL IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT BY EXERCISI NG ITS POWERS CONFERRED ON IT BY SECTION 119(2) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 6 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, AGRA WAS WHOLL Y UNJUSTIFIED, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN SUST AINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ON T HE GROUND THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B DO NOT PERMIT APPLICATIO N OF ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED ASSETS TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND IT IS ONLY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL WHO CAN REDUCE OR WAIVE THE INTEREST. 3.(I) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, AGRA WAS WH OLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A PPEAL NO.5 RAISED BEFORE HIM WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN CH ARGING THE INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WITHOUT G IVING ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN THIS REGARD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE FRAMING/COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND THUS THE LEVY OF INTERESTS U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C DESERVES TO BE QU ASHED. (II) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, AGRA OUGHT T O HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAIS ED BY THE APPELLANT WAS RELATED TO THE ISSUE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, A LTER, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR A T THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF GLASS BANGLES, GLASS T UMBLERS AND OTHER ITEMS MADE OF GLASS. A SEARCH AND SURVEY UNDER SECTION 132(1) AND 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) WAS CARRIED OUT O N 14/15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY, CASH WAS FOUND AND THE SAME WAS SEIZED. THE ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 7 ASSESSEE SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITTAL VIDE HIS STAT EMENT DATED 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND STATED IN REPL Y TO QUESTION NO.4 THAT THE CASH SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH/SURVEY BE ADJUSTE D AGAINST THE TAX DUE/ DEMAND CREATED. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE REQU EST AND LEVIED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE JUDGEME NT OF CIT VS. ANJUM M H GHASWALA REPORTED IN 252 ITR 1 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND CONFIRMED ACTION OF THE AO. THE CIT(A ) HELD THAT LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS AUTOMATIC AND THERE IS NO S COPE OF APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY OR RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THERE IS NO DI SCRETION AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. FOR WAIVER OF INTEREST. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN LEVYING THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT FOR A PERIOD OF 14 MONTHS W.E.F. 1 ST NOVEMBER 2007 TO DECEMBER 2008 ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. IN WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 8 3.2 THE SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE C IT (A) WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 234B/ 234C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX FOR THE A.Y . IN QUESTION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE SAME WAS N OT ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX DESPITE REQUESTS MADE. THE CIT(A) DISMI SSED THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL AS UNDER :- (PAGE NOS. 6 & 7 IN THE CASE OF NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS) IT IS ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SEIZED CASH TOWARDS THE ADVANC E TAX LIABILITY. BUT THESE DECISIONS AVAILABLE ARE GENERALLY IN RESPECT OF THE YEARS WHEN SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 132 WAS THERE ON THE STA TUTE BOOK WHICH IS NOT THERE NOW AND WHICH HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THE S TATUTE BOOK W.E.F. 1.6.2002. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B AS STATED ABOVE ARE VERY CLEAR, AND DO NOT PERMIT APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED ASSET LIKE CASH, BULLION, JEWELLERY ETC. TOWARDS THE ADVANCE T AX LIABILITY. ALSO, IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT IT IS ONLY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL WHO CAN REDUCE OR WAIVE THE INTEREST AS DISCUSSED WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE SEIZ ED CASH ETC. CANNOT BE ADJUSTED OR APPROPRIATED AGAINST ANY LIABILITY OTHE R THAN THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND AS ON THE DATE OF SEIZURE OR AGA INST THE LIABILITY WHICH WOULD GET CREATED ON FINALIZATION OF ASSESSME NT AFTER THE SEARCH. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS RIGHTLY CHARGED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234-B OF THE ACT . HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. BEFORE STARTING ARGUMENT, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT FOR FILIN G APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT . THE LD. AUTHORISED ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 9 REPRESENTATIVES WERE DIRECTED TO MAKE THEIR SUBMISS IONS ALSO ON THE ISSUE/OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE 5. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, AFTER NARRATI NG THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED LATE AS THE REV ENUE DID NOT PROVIDE THE COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENT IN TIME. LATE FILING OF RETURN WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS DUE TO REVENUE, THEREFORE, INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234A IS NOT CHARGEABLE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO DREW OUR ATT ENTION ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITTAL RECORDED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT TAX DUE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MAY BE ADJ USTED AGAINST THE AMOUNT, SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CASH FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS SUF FICIENT TO COVER THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE A.O. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGES NOS.29 & 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.472/AGRA/2001 WHERE SUMMARY OF CASH SEIZED OF ENTIRE GROUP HAS BE EN PLACED AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- SUMMARY OF CASH SEIZURE (PAGE 29) N.P. MITTAL & FAMILY & GROUP CONCERNS S.NO. NAME/PREMISES CASH FOUND CASH SEIZED 1. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITTAL & SMT. VEENA DEVI MITTAL 62,44,590.00 61,03,550.00 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 10 2. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI YOGESH MITTAL & SMT. SHWETA MITTAL 22,40,715.00 21,97,500.00 3. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI VED PRAKASH MITTAL & SMT. RADHA MITTAL 2,60,500.00 1,98,000.00 4. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI REETESH MITTAL & SMT. RASHI MITTAL 39,930.00 - 5. MEERA GLASS INDUSTRIES 40,020.00 - TOTAL 88,25,755.00 84,99,050.00 DETAILS OF DEMAND RAISED ON THE COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENTS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 TO 20 07-08 N.P. MITTAL & FAMILY (PAGE 38) S.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR TAX 1. M/S MEERA GLASS INDUSTRIES 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 217028.00 2004-05 166277.00 2005-06 393018.00 2006-07 712959.00 2007-08 921040.00 2. M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS 2001-02 373.00 2002-03 7203.00 2003-04 - 2004-05 2731.00 2005-06 1077073.00 2006-07 1660375.00 2007-08 1037854.00 3. SHRI NARENDRA PRAKASH MITAL 2001-02 1373.00 2002-03 50007.00 2003-04 - 2004-05 43440.00 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 11 2005-06 24480.00 2006-07 268056.00 2007-08 164984.00 4. SMT. VEENA DEVI MITTAL 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 12600.00 2004-05 978.00 2005-06 4140.00 2006-07 1417.00 2007-08 - 5. SHRI VED PRAKASH MITTAL 2001-02 - 2002-03 51564.00 2003-04 - 2004-05 14800.00 2005-06 24480.00 2006-07 268007.00 2007-08 77481.00 6. SMT. RADHA MITTAL 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 - 2004-05 - 2005-06 24480.00 2006-07 321722.00 2007-08 432588.00 TOTAL 7982528.00 SUMMARY OF CASH SEIZURE (REPRODUCED FROM PAGE NO.25 & 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ITA NO 468/AGRA/2010) S.P. MITTAL & FAMILY & GROUP CONCERNS (PAGE 25) S.NO. NAME/PREMISES CASH FOUND CASH SEIZED 1. 33, CIRCULAR ROAD, FIROZABAD 4,42,000.00 3,70,00 0.00 2. ROOM BELONGING TO -- 2,80,500.00 2,60,500.00 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 12 SHRI SATISH P. MITTAL & SMT. SHEILA RABNI MITTAL, 29-30, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. 3. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI SANJAY PRAKASH MITTAL, 29-30, GANESH NAGAR, FIROZABAD. 4,14,750.00 3,85,000.00 4. ROOM BELONGING TO -- SHRI SANJEEV PRAKASH MITTAL & SMT. RAGINI MITTAL 1,67,050.00 1,54,500.00 5. C-8, AWAGARH HOUSE, AGRA. 87,29,800.00 87,27,800 .00 6. M/S PARAS GLASSWARE (P) LTD., 68, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NUNHAI, AGRA 1,20,645.00 1,20,000.00 TOTAL 1,01,54,745.00 1,00,17,800.00 DETAILS OF DEMAND RAISED ON THE COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENTS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 TO 20 07-08 S.P. MITTAL & FAMILY (PAGE 32) S.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR TAX 1. M/S FARUKHI GLASS INDUSTRIES 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 - 2004-05 159955.00 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 1234562.00 2. M/S NANNUMAL GLASS WORKS 2001-02 21060.00 2002-03 2565.00 2003-04 - 2004-05 - 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 1108706.00 3. M/S PARAS GLASSWARE 2001-02 - 2002-03 - ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 13 2003-04 - 2004-05 - 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 559551.00 4. SHRI SATISH PRAKSH MITTAL 2001-02 1447.00 2002-03 - 2003-04 - 2004-05 - 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 4455270.00 5. SHRI SANJEEV PRAKASH MITTAL 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 - 2004-05 - 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 192938.00 6. SHRI SANJAY PRAKASH MITTAL 2001-02 - 2002-03 - 2003-04 235365.00 2004-05 - 2005-06 - 2006-07 - 2007-08 99500.00 7. SMT. SHEILA RANI MITTAL 2001-02 543.00 2002-03 - 2003-04 15876.00 2004-05 67320.00 2005-06 - 2006-07 7291.00 2007-08 485320.00 TOTAL 8647269.00 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 14 5.1 LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRANOY ROY & ANOTHER AND CIT VS. INDIA METERS L IMITED, 309 ITR 231 (SC) LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS/ DECISIONS :- I) ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GOPAL CHAND KHA NDELWAL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 52 ITD (DEL) 661 II) ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAGHU NANDAN LAL & OTHERS REPORTED IN 76 TTJ 186 (CHD.) III) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . K.K. MARKETING REPORTED IN 278 ITR 596 (DEL.) IV) ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR M. S HETTY VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 10 DTR (MUMBAI)(TRIB) 173 V) ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SATYA PRAKASH S HARMA VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 20 DTR (DEL) (TRIB) 561 VI) ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANAND SHANKAR MITTAL VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 34 DTR (JP)(TRIB) 589 VII) HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ARUN KAPOOR REPORTED IN 334 ITR 351 (P&H) VIII) HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR REPORTED IN 334 ITR 355 (P&H) IX) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWAN ATH KHANNA VS. UOI REPORTED IN 335 ITR 548 (DEL.) X) ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF NIKKA MAL BABU RAM VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 41 SOT 407 (CHD.) XI) ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI M. RAJ ASEKHAR REDDY VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.1722 & 1733/HYD/2011 REPORTED IN 20 12(7) TMI 457. XII) ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BOM BAY BEADS CENTER IN ITA NO. 3458/MUM/2011. ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 15 XIII) ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JEFFERALI K . RATTONSEY VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.5854/MUM/2009 XIV) ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIDDHARTH J AIN VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2166/KOL/2009 XV) ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. PUSHPA A. P. BHATT VS. ACIT & OTHERS IN ITA NO.82 TO 93/COCH/2010 XVI) ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA IN ITA NO.4108/DEL/2010 XIII) ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHR I SUNIL KUMAR IN ITA NO.4109/DEL/2010 XIII)` HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHT AK & HISSAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 128 ITR 52 (DEL.) 5.2 LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTIO N ON PAGE 6 OF A.O.S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT STATE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 243A, 234B & 234C OF THE A CT. HOWEVER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTERE ST HAS BEEN CHARGED IN ITNS-1 PREPARED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED. THERE IS NO DIRECTION MENTIONED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDERS THEREFORE INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, KANPUR VS. DEEP AWADH HOTELS (P) LTD. IN ITA NOS.81 & 82 OF 2002, JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2011, ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, KANPUR VS. SARIN CHEMICAL LABORATOR Y IN ITA NO.43 OF 2003, JUDGEMENT DATED 18.05.2012 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. S.K. FABRICATORS IN ITA NO.7 OF 2003, JUDGEMENT DATED 03.08.2011. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY HONBLE ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 16 UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEHRAD UN CLUB LIMITED IN ITA NO.15 OF 2006 JUDGEMENT DATE 14.10.2011. 6. IN RESPECT OF MAINTENANCE OF APPEAL AGAINST CHAR GING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT, LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LEVY, ASSESSMENT & COLLECTION ARE OF WIDEST SI GNIFICANCE. THE WORDS ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS ACQUIRED DEFINITE AND DISTINCT CONNOTATIONS AND CHARGING OF INTEREST IS PART AND PARCEL OF ASSESSME NT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A.N . LAKSHMAN SHENOY VS. ITO, 34 ITR 275 (SC). LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY VS. ITO, 230 ITR 9 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE J UDGEMENT OF A.N. LAKSHMAN SHENOY VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT ORDER UNDER WH ICH THE PETITIONERS LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AND RECOVERY MADE TREATING PETITIONE R AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT WAS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL PRO VINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 160 ITR 961 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 139 AND 215 OF THE ACT IS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT. LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 17 THAT THE APEX COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE ASSES SEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT, HE HAS A RIGHT OF APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DENIAL OF LIABILITY MAY BE WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON 194/SC/ITR/645. 6.1 IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT AND REVE NUE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. DOES NOT ARISE. 6.2 LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THE COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 234A IS NOT ATTRACTED AT ALL. IN RESPECT OF OTHER INTEREST UND ER SECTION 234B, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS ALREAD Y BEEN DEPOSITED AS THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE AMOUNT SEIZED MAY BE AD JUSTED AGAINST THE DEMAND. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 23C OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE:- I) CIT VS. PRAKASH COTTON MILLS (P) LTD., 188 ITR 7 13 (BOM.) II) ORDER DATED 21.11.2011 PASSED ITAT, RAJKOT BENC H IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM S SARDA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1172/RJT/2010 REPORT ED IN 13 ITR (TRIB.) 457 (RAJKOT) III) ORDER OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DR. SAMEER KANT AGARWAL REPORTED IN 17 DTR 185. ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 18 IV) ORDER DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED BY ITAT, MUMBAI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. ZEST HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.8354/ MUM/2010 V) CIT VS. VEPPALODAI SALT CORPORATION, 171 ITR 366 (MAD.) 6.3 THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCED ED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEET A RAM KALI RAM, SUSHIL KUMAR VS. CIT, 121/ITR/FB/708 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SI MILAR VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD., 121 ITR 747 (ALL.) BUT AN APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 233 ITR 199 (SC) WHEREIN THIS GROUND WAS C ONSIDERED BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JU DGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM (SUPRA) A ND HONBLE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED DECISION OF HIGH COURT IN ABOVE CASE OF S WADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. (SUPRA). 6.4 LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ME RELY CONSIDERING ANY GROUND BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ME AN THAT THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE, 53 ITR 225 (SC), A.N. LAKSHMAN SHENOY VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 19 PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), T HE APPEAL CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS MAINT AINABLE. 6.5 AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISING THE GR OUND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CHARGI NG INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C COMPLETELY IGNORING THAT THE TAX ALREAD Y PAID, BEING CASH SEIZED, WAS NOT LESS THAN THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE RETURNED INCOM E WHICH WAS ACCEPTED. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT TH IS GROUND IS ONE OF THE SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, THEREFORE, SAME MAY BE TREATED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON OTHER HA ND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT MEREL Y CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS NOT CONCLUSIVE THAT THE SAME IS ADJUSTABL E AGAINST THE DEMAND CREATED. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CHAR GING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN LATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE THAT ALL THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS CITED BY THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARE THE JUDGEMENTS PERTAINING TO WRIT FILED BY THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, ON THAT BASIS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 20 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS MAINTAINABLE. LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM, SUSHIL KUMAR VS. CIT, 121 ITR 708 (ALL.) (F.B. ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON THE BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 1 60 ITR 961 (SC) HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE D ECIDING THE ISSUE REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTER EST. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM. LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS MAINTAINABLE ONLY IN CASE OF DEN IAL OF LIABILITY, AS SUCH, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROSHANLAL S. JAIN VS. DCIT, 309 ITR 174 (GUJ) WHERE IN THEY HAVE DISSENTED FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DR. PRANNOY ROY AND ANOTHER VS. CIT AND ANOTHER, 254 ITR 755. LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2 34A, 234B & 234C IS MANDATORY; THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABL E. LD. DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 21 REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA & ORS. (SC) 8. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN REJOINDER SUBMI TTED THAT THE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH IN ACIT VS. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITE D, 4 SOT 757 (MUMBAI) AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT HELD THAT THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES. THE FIRST LEGAL ISSUE WHETHER AN APPEAL LIE AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT UNDER SECTION 246 OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES POINTED OUT THAT ON THE ISSUE THERE IS A DIRECT JUDGEMENT O F JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM, SUSHIL KUMAR VS . CIT, 121 ITR 708 (ALL.) (F.B.). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN FOLLO WED BY THE JURIDICAL HIGH COURT IN VARIOUS ABOVE CASES. LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE SAID JUDGEMENT BY REFERRING THE JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 160 ITR 9 61 (SC) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS AS CITED IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT CHARGING O F INTEREST IS PART AND PARCEL OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, CHARGING OF INT EREST COMES UNDER THE WORD ASSESSED. ONCE THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ASSESSE D INCLUDES INTEREST, THEREFORE, ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 22 THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 246 OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DENIAL OF LIABILITY MAY BE FULL OR PARTIAL. T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THERE IS A DIR ECT JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RA M (SUPRA) AND M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINEET TALKIES VS. CIT, 148 IT R 66 (MP) THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE TRIED TO INTERPRET THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE APEX COURT WHICH ARE NOT DIRECT ON THE ISSUE. 9.1 TO APPRECIATE THIS LEGAL ISSUE, APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, AND 234C OF THE ACT, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (FULL BENCH) IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM, 121 ITR 708 (ALL) (FB). THESE WERE A SET OF A PPEALS BEFORE THE COURT. IN ONE OF THE CASE, THE I.T.O. CHARGED PENAL INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 139 & 217 OF THE ACT. THE A.A.C. HELD THAT WHILE IT WAS A FIT CASE IN WHICH LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 139 SHOULD BE WAIVED UNDER RULE 117A, NO AP PEAL LAY AGAINST LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 217. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT CHARGE OF INTEREST NEITHER OF THE SECTIONS WAS APPEALABLE. IN ONE MORE APPEAL THE I.T .O. CHARGED PENAL INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 139 & 215 OF THE ACT. THE A.A.C. UP HELD THE I.T.O.S ORDER IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 139 OF TH E ACT BUT REDUCED THE AMOUNT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE ACT. THE I.T.O. L EVIED PENAL INTEREST UNDER ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 23 SECTIONS 217 & 139(1), BUT THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THESE TWO SECTIONS WERE NOT ATTRA CTED. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO APPEAL LAY AGAINST THE ITOS ORDER CHARGING THE SAI D INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 139 & 217. 9.2 BEFORE COMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM, 121 ITR 708 (ALL) (FB) WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT DURING DISCUSSION OF SAID JUDGEMENT THE REFERENCE T O CLAUSES NUMBER AND SECTION IN DISCUSSIONS ARE THE CLAUSES AND SECTIONS IN THE STA TUTE AT THE RELEVANT TIME OF THE JUDGMENT. 9.3 THE ISSUE IS RELATED TO SECTION 246 OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED FROM THE ACT (2011) AS UNDER :- APPEALABLE ORDERS. 246. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), ANY ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER (OTHER THA N THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) MAY APPEAL TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) [BEFORE THE 1ST D AY OF JUNE, 2000] AGAINST SUCH ORDER (A) AN ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHERE THE ASSESS EE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT (UNDERLINED BY US FOR GIVING EMPHASIS ON THESE WOR DS) [, OR AN INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTIO N 143, WHERE THE ASSESSEE OBJECTS TO THE MAKING OF ADJUSTMENTS,] OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 144, WHERE THE ASSESSEE OBJECTS TO T HE AMOUNT OF INCOME ASSESSED, OR TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX DETERMINED, OR TO THE AMOUNT OF L OSS COMPUTED, OR TO THE STATUS UNDER WHICH HE IS ASSESSED; (B) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPU TATION UNDER SECTION 147 OR SECTION 150; ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 24 (C) AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OR SECTION 155 HAVIN G THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR AN ORDER REFUSIN G TO ALLOW THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER EITHER OF THE SAID SECTIONS; (D) AN ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 163 TREATING THE AS SESSEE AS THE AGENT OF A NON-RESIDENT; (E) AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 170; (F) AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 171; (G) ANY ORDER UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) O R UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 185 [***] [IN RES PECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1992]; (H) AN ORDER CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF A FIRM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 186 [***] [IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1992] ; (I) AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201; (J) AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 216 IN RESPECT OF ANY A SSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 OR ANY EAR LIER ASSESSMENT YEAR; (K) AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 237; (L) AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER (I) SECTION 221, OR (II) SECTION 271, SECTION 271A, SECTION 271B, [***] [SECTION 272A, SECTION 272AA OR SECTION 272BB]; (III) [***] SECTION 272, SECTION 272B OR SECTION 27 3, AS THEY STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1989, IN RESPECT OF AN Y ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 OR AN Y EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. [(1A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SE CTION (1), EVERY APPEAL FILED, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2000, BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTE D WITH SUCH APPEAL AND WHICH IS SO PENDING SHALL STAND TRANSFERRED TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH APPEAL OR MATTER FROM THE STAGE A T WHICH IT WAS ON THAT DAY.] (2) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), ANY ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE APPOINTED DAY) MAY APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) [BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2000] AGAINST SUCH ORDER ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 25 (A) [AN INTIMATION OR ORDER SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTIO N (1) WHERE SUCH INTIMATION IS SENT OR SUCH ORDER] IS MADE BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN E XERCISE OF THE POWERS OR FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ON OR ASSIGNED TO HIM UNDER SECTION 120 O R SECTION 124; (B) AN ORDER SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (E) (BOTH INCLUSIVE) AND CLAUSES (I) TO (L) (BOTH INCLUSIVE) OF SUB-SECTION (1) [OR AN ORDER UNDER SE CTION 104, AS IT STOOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988 IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1987 OR ANY EAR LIER ASSESSMENT YEAR] MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, BEING A COMPANY; (C) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984, ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UN DER SECTION 144A; (D) AN ORDER MADE BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 154; [(DA) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC, IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997; (DB) AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 158BFA;] (E) AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 B [OR SECTION 271BB]; [(EE) AN ORDER MADE BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IMPOSI NG A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C, SECTION 271D OR SECTION 271E;] (F) AN ORDER MADE BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR A DEP UTY DIRECTOR IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A; [(FF) AN ORDER MADE BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IMPOSI NG A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272AA;] [(G) AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER CHAPTER XXI BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER OR THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WHERE SUCH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 274;] (H) AN ORDER MADE BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER (OTHER TH AN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER) UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IN THE CASE OF SUCH PERSON O R CLASSES OF PERSONS AS THE BOARD MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE CASES, THE COMPL EXITIES INVOLVED AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, DIRECT. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), THE BOARD OR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IF SO AUTHOR ISED BY THE BOARD, MAY, BY ORDER IN WRITING, TRANSFER ANY APPEAL WHICH IS PENDING BEFOR E A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH SUCH APPEAL AND WHICH IS SO PENDING, TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IF THE BOARD OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OR CHIEF ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 26 COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER (AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT OR OTHERWISE) IS SATISFIED THAT IT IS NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT SO TO DO HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE, THE COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH APPEAL OR MATTER, FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH IT W AS BEFORE IT WAS SO TRANSFERRED: PROVIDED THAT THE APPELLANT MAY DEMAND THAT BEFORE PROCEEDI NG FURTHER WITH THE APPEAL OR MATTER, THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF BE RE-OPENED OR THAT HE BE REHEARD. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) 'APPOINTED DAY' MEANS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 197 8, BEING THE DAY APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 39 OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1977 (29 OF 1977); (B) 'STATUS' MEANS THE CATEGORY UNDER WHICH THE ASS ESSEE IS ASSESSED AS 'INDIVIDUAL', 'HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY' AND SO ON.] 9.4 NOW COMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT, WE NOTICED THAT THE COURT CONSIDERED THE HISTORY OF CHARGING OF INT EREST AND RIGHT TO FILE APPEAL. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST WAS AUTOMATIC . THE ITO HAD NO DISCRETION. HE HAD MERELY TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT. THE COURT HAS A LSO REFERRED THE SELECT COMMITTEE, THE DIRECT TAXES ADMINISTRATION ENQUIRY COMMITTEE (POPULARLY KNOWN AS TYAGI COMMITTEE) AND NOTED THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT AN ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 216 [EQUIVALENT TO OLD SECTION 1 8A(1)] SHOULD BE MADE APPEALABLE, AND ACCORDINGLY, UNDER CLAUSE (N) OF SE CTION 246 OF THE 1961 ACT AN APPEAL WAS SO PROVIDED. NO APPEAL WAS, HOWEVER, PRO VIDED AGAINST ORDERS LEVYING PENAL INTEREST UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS, LIKE SECTION 18 A(6), EQUIVALENT TO SECTION 215, AND SECTION 217, EQUIVALENT TO OLD SECTION 18A (8). THE POSITION IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE TYAGI COMMITTEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY PARLIAMENT, NOR WAS THE PHRASE 'WHERE THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSE SSED UNDER ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 27 THIS ACT' CHANGED OR MODIFIED SO AS TO INCLUDE ORDERS OF LEVY OF INTEREST. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT PARLIAMENTS INTENTION IS EVIDENT. SU CH ORDERS WERE NOT FOUND FIT FOR APPEAL. 9.5 THE COURT HAS EXAMINED THE PHRASES DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED' AND 'UNDER THIS ACT'. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THIS PART OF CLAUSE (C), NO PARTICULAR SECTION OR PROVISION OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. UNDER THE LATTER PART OF CLAUSE (C) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 144 IS APPEALABLE. SIMILARLY, THE VARIOUS OTHER CLAUSES OF SECTION 246 SPECIFICALLY REFER TO THE PARTICULAR SECTION, ORDERS PASSED WHERE UNDER W ERE APPEALABLE. IN THIS SETTING, THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'UNDER THIS ACT' SHOULD NOT M EAN UNDER ANY INDIVIDUAL SECTION OR PROVISION OF THIS ACT. 9.6 THE COURT HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE TERM 'ASSESSED' AND OBSERVED THAT THE TERM 'ASSESSED' OCCURRING IN THIS PHRASE ALSO NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY CONSTRUED. EVER SINCE THE DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN CIT V. K HEMCHAND RAMDAS [1938] 6 ITR 414 , IT IS SETTLED THAT THE WORD 'ASSESSMENT' AS USED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS USED AS MEANING SOMETIMES THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME , SOMETIMES DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE, AND SOMETIMES THE WHO LE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR IMPOSING LIABILITY UPON THE TAXPAYER - C.A. ABRAHAM V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 28 425 (SC), KALAWATI DEVI HARLALKA V. CIT [1967] 66 I TR 680 (SC) AND S. SANKAPPA V. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC).THE COURT FURTHER OB SERVED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF CLAUSE (C), THE WORD 'ASSESSED' CANNOT MEAN COMPUTA TION OF INCOME OR DETERMINATION OF TAX, BECAUSE SUCH THINGS ARE ALREA DY PROVIDED FOR IN THE LATTER PART OF THE SAME CLAUSE. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS USED IN THE CO MPREHENSIVE SENSE TO MEAN SUBJECTED TO THE WHOLE PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING A ND IMPOSING LIABILITY ON THE TAXPAYER AND THE LIABILITY ARE UNDER THE ACT AND NO T UNDER ANY PARTICULAR PROVISION OR INDIVIDUAL SECTION OF THE ACT. 9.7 THE COURT HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE PHRASE 'DENYING HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT' AND OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PHRASE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN MAND AL GINNING & PRESSING CO. LTD. V. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 332 THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF THE SAID JUDGMENT NOTED BY THE COURT ARE AS UNDER:- (121 ITR PAGE NO. 712) BHAGWATI, CJ.. (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS), SPOKE FOR THE BENCH. AFTER REFERRING TO KHEMCHAND'S CASE (SUPRA), IT WAS OBSERVED: '... THE QUESTION WOULD, THEREFORE, BE WHAT IS THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD 'ASSESSED' IS USED IN THIS CONTEXT. OBVIOU SLY, IT IS USED IN A COMPREHENSIVE SENSE TO MEAN 'SUBJECTED TO THE WHOLE PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING AND IMPOSING LIABILITY ON THE TAXPAYER '.' HE HELD :'... ON THE CONTRARY, THE WORDS 'UNDER THIS ACT' C LEARLY GO TO SHOW THAT THE REFERENCE HERE IS TO THE WHOLE PROCED URE LAID DOWN IN ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 29 THE ACT FOR IMPOSING LIABILITY UPON THE TAXPAYER. T HE LEGISLATURE HAS DELIBERATELY AND ADVISEDLY USED THE WORDS 'UNDER TH IS ACT' AND NOT 'UNDER', 'A' OR 'ANY' PROVISION OF THIS ACT. WHAT I S MEANT BY THE EXPRESSION 'ANY ASSESSEE... DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT' IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT, OR, IN OTH ER WORDS, HE IS NOT 'LIABLE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY PART OF THE PROCEDUR E LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR IMPOSING LIABILITY TO TAX'' IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER AN ORDER OF R ECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 35(1) WAS APPEALABLE. HIS LORDSHIP OB SERVED: '... WHEN AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST UNDER SECTION 35, SUB-SECTION (1) , WHICH, PARAPHRASING IT IN THE LANGUAGE OF S. SANKAPPA'S CA SE, MEANS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED BY A PROCEEDING FOR RE CTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 35, SUB-SECTION (1), HE IS NOT 'DENYING HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT'. HIS OBJECTION THEN IS ONL Y AGAINST A PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER A PARTICULAR PROVIS ION OF THE ACT. HE DOES NOT SAY: 'I AM NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT AL L UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT' WHICH IS WHAT IS CONNOTED BY THE EXPRES SION 'DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT'.' HIS LORDSHIP WENT ON TO MAKE A NOTE OF CAUTION. SAI D HE: '... OF COURSE, WE MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DENIAL O F LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED MAY BE IN RESPECT OF THE WHOLE INCOME O R ANY PART OF THE INCOME. IT MAY BE BASED ON ANY GROUND, WHETHER OF F ACT OR OF LAW, AND IT MAY BE TOTAL DENIAL OF LIABILITY OR DENIAL OF LI ABILITY UNDER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.(121 ITR PAGE 713).. BUT THE 'DENIAL MUST BE OF THE LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT' AND NOT MERELY UNDER ANY PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ACT. 9.8 THE COURT HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ASPECT OF DENIAL OF LIABILITY . THE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- (121 ITR PAGE 713) ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 30 THE DENIAL OF LIABILITY CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 30, SUB- SECTION (1), IS, THEREFORE, DENIAL OF LIABILITY TO BE CHARGED WITH TAX UNDER THE ACT, WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT ALL UNDER ANY PROVISIO N OF THE ACT OR TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY PART OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR IMPOSING LIABILITY TO TAX. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN CIT V. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE [1964] 53 ITR 225 IS IN POINT. IN THAT CASE, THE S UPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT. IN THAT CASE T HE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS CONTENDED THAT IT, AS AN ASSESSABLE ENTITY, WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED, BUT ITS INDIVID UAL MEMBERS, AS SEPARATE ASSESSABLE ENTITIES, ALONE WERE LIABLE. TH E SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE A SSESSED UNDER THE ACT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT WAS HELD: 'THE EXPRESSION 'DENIAL OF LIABILITY' IS COMPREHENS IVE ENOUGH TO TAKE IN NOT ONLY THE TOTAL DENIAL OF LIABILITY BUT ALSO THE LIABILITY TO TAX UNDER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. IN EITHER CASE, THE DENIAL IS A DENIAL OF LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN ONE CASE, THE ASSESSEE SAYS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSES SED TO TAX UNDER THE ACT, AND IN THE OTHER CASE THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IF THE OPTION GIVEN TO TH E APPROPRIATE OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS JUDICIALLY EXERC ISED.' THE OPTION GIVEN TO THE OFFICER WAS EITHER TO TAX T HE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS AS A COLLECTIVE ENTITY OR THE MEMBERS IN DIVIDUALLY. IF HE EXERCISED THE OPTION ONE WAY, THE ASSOCIATION OF PE RSONS COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT AT ALL. THIS DECISION SUGGESTS THAT THE DENIAL OF LIABILITY WAS NOT DENIAL UNDER A NY PARTICULAR PROVISION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DENIAL SHOULD BE AGA INST BEING SUBJECTED TO THE WHOLE PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING A ND IMPOSING LIABILITY ON THE TAXPAYER. A DENIAL AGAINST BEING S UBJECTED TO A PART OF THE PROCESS OF ASCERTAINING AND IMPOSING LIABILITY IS NOT WITHIN ITS AMBIT. 9.9 THE COURT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. JAGDISH PRASAD RAMNATH [1955] 27 ITR 192(BOMB) AS U NDER:- ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 31 THERE THE ASSESSEE WAS A NEW ASSESSEE. HE DID N OT MAKE ANY ESTIMATE OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 18A, NOR DID HE DEPOSIT ADVANCE TAX. THE ITO DISCOVERED SUCH FAI LURE AND IMPOSED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 18A(8). THE QUESTION WAS WHE THER THIS LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST WAS APPEALABLE. ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE, IT WAS STRESSED THAT HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AT ALL, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ITO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE WAS SO LIABLE WAS WRONG. CHAGLA, CJ., SPEAKING FOR THE BENCH, OBS ERVED: 'THEREFORE, THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS THAT PENAL INT EREST MUST FOLLOW UPON THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT; THE APPEAL SHOU LD BE AGAINST THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE ALL POINTS WHICH MAY LEGITIMAT ELY NOT ONLY REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME OR THE TAX TO BE PAID OR WITH RE GARD TO THE PROPER HEAD UNDER WHICH THE INCOME SHOULD FALL BUT ALSO RE DUCE THE QUANTUM OF PENAL INTEREST AND THE LEGISLATURE HAVING PROVID ED FOR THIS IN THE REGULAR APPEAL ITSELF DID NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TH AT A SEPARATE RIGHT OF APPEAL SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAL AG AINST THE QUANTUM OF PENAL INTEREST.' DEALING WITH THE DENIAL OF THE LIABILITY TO BE ASSE SSED UNDER THE ACT MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (C), THE LEARNED JUDGE HELD : 'THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT I N THE CASE OF A NEW ASSESSEE WHO HAD NEVER BEEN ASSESSED TO ADVANCE TAX AND UPON WHOM THERE NEVER WAS A LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX THAT HE COULD LEGITIMATELY SAY THAT HE IS DENYING HIS LIABILITY T O BE ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT. IN FACT, HE HAS NEVER BEEN ASSESSED. IN FA CT, NO LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX HAS EVER BEEN IMPOSED UPON HIM. IN FACT , HE HAS NEVER BEEN CALLED UPON TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. IT IS ONLY ON HIS BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT THAT IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE MADE AN ESTIMATE UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECT ION 18A AND PAID ADVANCE TAX, AND, THEREFORE, HE IS LIABLE TO PAY TH E PENALTY.' IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAIN ST IMPOSITION OF PENAL INTEREST UNDER THE DENIAL CLAUSE. THIS DECISION MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPEALABI LITY ON THE GROUNDS WHICH LEGITI- MATELY ARE COVERED BY THE CLA USE 'ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OR COMPUTATION OF TAX'. AN APPEAL WOULD LIE UNDER THAT CLAUSE ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 32 AGAINST ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER A WRONG HEAD OR SOURCE; BUT ON THESE GROUNDS AN APPEAL IS N OT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE DENIAL CLAUSE. 9.10 THE COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THEIR EARLIER JU DGMENT IN THE CASE OF VIDYAPAT SINGHANIA VS. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 533, AND NOTED THE FINDING OF THE COURT WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE DENIAL, OF COURSE, MAY BE EITHER ABSOLUTE OR C ONDITIONAL BUT THE DENIAL MUST BE TOTAL. A PERSON WHO OBJECTS TO A PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO DENY HIS LIABILI TY TO BE ASSESSED. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN A PERSON OBJECTS TO THE LEVY OF TAX ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HIS DENIAL IS ABSOLUTE. AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. BUT WHEN A PERSON OBJECTS T O THE LEVY OF TAX ON HIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE A SSESSED BELONGS TO HIM IN THE CAPACITY OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY AND NOT IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN INDIVIDUAL, HE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE DENIAL IS COMPLETE EVEN THOUGH NOT ABSOLUTE.' REFERRING TO THE ARGUMENT THAT INTEREST WAS PART OF TAX, THE BENCH OBSERVED: 'EVEN IF PENAL INTEREST IS A PART OF TAX, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT, BECAUSE HE OBJECTS TO THE LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST ONLY AND NOT TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 23. SO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SPELL OUT A RIGHT OF APPEAL EVEN BY VIRTUE OF THE CLAUSE 'DENYING HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT' OCCURRING IN SECTION 30 OF THE ACT.' 9.11 AFTER THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS ON THE ISSUE CO NSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER THE COURT HELD AS UNDER:- (121 ITR PAGE NO 715) ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 33 IN OUR OPINION, THE DENIAL CLAUSE DOES NOT ENCOMPA SS DENIAL WHICH IS TO SOME PART OF THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT OR UNDER A PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE DENIAL CLAUSE APPLIES TO A SITUATION W HERE THE DENIAL IS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AS SUCH. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CASE OF A NON RESIDENT, THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM. SIMILARLY, AGRICULTURAL I NCOME IS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AT ALL. ON THESE POINTS, THE DENIAL IS THAT THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE SUPREME COURT'S CASE OF KANPUR COAL SYNDICAT E (SUPRA) , THE DENIAL WAS THAT IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSON TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT ALL. SIMILARLY, A PERSON MAY SAY THAT T HE INCOME BELONGS TO HIS HUF AND HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN HIS INDIVIDU AL CAPACITY. THESE ARE THE INSTANCES OF DENIAL IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. 14. THE GROUND OF OBJECTION THAT THE CONDITIONS MEN TIONED IN SECTION 217 OR 139 DO NOT EXIST AND SO THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED , DOES NOT RELATE TO DENIAL OF ASSESSMENT LIABILITY. SUCH DENIAL IS PARTIAL, NOT T O THE INCOME ASSESSED, BUT TO CHARGE OF INTEREST. THEN, THE ITO DOES NOT ASSESS A NY LIABILITY TO TAX. HE FINDS A DEFAULT AND CHARGES INTEREST. SUCH A DECISION IS NO T COVERED BY THE DENIAL CLAUSE. WE ARE, WITH RESPECT, UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS VIE W TAKEN BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHIKHOOBHAI N. SHAH V. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 197 AND THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN NATIONAL PRODUCTS V. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 93 5(KAR) . (121 ITR PAGE 716) THIS VIEW HAS PREVAILED IN THIS COURT CONSISTENTLY IN PT. DEO SHARMA V. CIT [1943] 23 ITR 226, RAMCHAND & SONS SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. V CIT [1977] 107 ITR 539, SETH BANARSI DAS GUPTA V. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 368, A DDL. CIT V. ALLAHABAD MILLING CO. [1978] 111 ITR 111 AND MEWA LAL V. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 598. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN BODDU SEETHARAMASWAMY V. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 156 , THE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN SOUTH INDIA FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD. V CIT [1968] 70 ITR 863 AND RAJYAM PICTURES V. ADDL. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 847 , THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SHARMA CONSTRUCTION CO. [1975] 100 ITR 603 , AND THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN K.B. STORES V. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 505. IN DAIMLAR BENZ'S CASE (SUPRA ), THE FULL BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT MENTIONED FIVE INSTANCES WHICH WOULD BE COVERED UND ER THE DENIAL CLAUSE, NAMELY: (A)AN ASSESSEE CONTENDING THAT HE IS NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE ACT AT ALL; FOR INSTANCE, A NON-RESIDENT; (B)AN ASSESSEE, THOUGH FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE ACT, CONTENDING THAT HIS INCOME SOUGHT TO BE ASSESSED IS NOT CHARGE ABLE AT ALL; FOR INSTANCE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME; ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 34 (C)AN ASSESSEE HAVING CHARGEABLE INCOME, BUT CONTEN DING THAT THE SAME FALLS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER ONE AND NOT THE OTHER HEAD; FOR INST ANCE, WHEN HE RECEIVES AN INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY BUT CONTENDS THAT TH E SAME IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' B UT IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION' OR VICE VERSA; (D)AN ASSESSEE MAY ACCEPT A PARTICULAR HEAD OF INCO ME BUT DENIES THE SOURCE OF THAT INCOME; FOR INSTANCE, WHEN HE CONTENDS THAT HE HAS INCOME FROM BUSINESS BUT CONTENDS THAT SUCH INCOME IS FROM 'A' BUSINESS AND NOT FROM 'B' BUSINESS; AND (E)AN ASSESSEE CONTENDING THAT PART OF THE INCOME F ROM A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IS NOT ASSESSABLE. IN OUR VIEW, CASES MENTIONED IN (A) AND (B) ALONE ARE APPEALABLE UNDER THE DENIAL CLAUSE. CASES MENTIONED IN CATEGORIES (C) , (D) AN D (E) ARE ALSO APPEALABLE, BUT AGAINST THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE CLAUSE REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OR COMPUTATION OF TAX. 16. THE UPSHOT OF ALL THE DISCUSSION IS THAT ON ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF OBJECTION, AN APPEAL LIES THOUGH SOME GROUNDS ONLY ARE OPEN UNDER THE DENIAL CLAUSE WHILE OTHER GROUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT MENTION OF A WRONG PROVISIO NS IN A MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IS NOT FATAL TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF AN APPEAL. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER COUNTS. ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF OBJECTION CAN BE TAKEN IN AN APPEAL. BUT NONE OF THESE CATEGORIES COVER THE GROUND RELATING TO THE QUANTUM OF PENAL INTEREST WHETHER IT BE FOR THE. (121 ITR PAGE 717) REASON THAT THE ITO OUGHT TO HAVE WAIVED OR R EDUCED THE PENAL INTEREST OR THAT THE PROVISIONS LIKE SECTION 139 OR 217, ETC ., ARE NOT ATTRACTED. SUCH GROUNDS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ME RELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE REGULAR ASSES SMENT ORDER. ON THESE GROUNDS, THE REMEDY IS BY WAY OF APPLYING FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OR REVISION TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 264. SINCE 1-10-1975 , THE ASSESSEE HAS A MORE SPECIFIC REMEDY UNDER SECTION 273A IN CASE HIS GRIE VANCE IS IN RESPECT OF WAIVING OR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST VIDE CLAUSE (III ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 273A. LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, THE ASSESSEE HAS A REMED Y OF FILING A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HIGH COURT. 9.12 WE MAY STATE WHEN DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 35 SAME ISSUE IN 233/ITR/199, OTHER DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES CANNOT BE GIVEN PREFERENCE. 9.13 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WH ICH IS ALSO JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SO FAR OUR JURISDICTION OF I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION DECIDED IN THE CASE OF VINEET TALKIES VS. CIT, 148 ITR 66 (MP) AS UNDER:- THERE IS DIVERGENCE OF OPINION AMONG DIFFERENT HIG H COURTS REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF THIS EXPRESSION WHERE THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THIS ACT. THE MAJORITY VIEW IS THAT THIS CLAUSE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THIS ACT; IT APPLIES ONLY WHERE THERE IS DENIAL OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AS SUCH BECAUSE SUCH THING S ARE ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE LATTER PART OF THE SAME CLAUSE, OBV IOUSLY, IT IS USED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE SENSE TO MEAN SUBJECT TO THE WHOL E PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING AND IMPOSING LIABILITY ON THE TAX PAYE R; AND THE LIABILITY IS UNDER THE ACT AND NOT UNDER ANY PARTICULAR PROVI SION OR INDIVIDUAL SECTION OF THE ACT. I.E., THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THA T HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR, IN OT HER WORDS, HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANY PART OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR IMPOSING LIABILITY TO TAX. THE DENIAL CLAU SE DOES NOT ENCOMPASS DENIAL WHICH IS TO SOME PART OF THE PROCE SS OF ASSESSMENT OR UNDER A PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE ACT [SEE CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM (1980) 15 CTR (ALL) 67 (FB) : (1980) 121 I TR 708 (ALL) (FB) : TC6R.654. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN B ODDU SEETHARAMASWAMY VS. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 156 (AP) : TC 6R.620 CIT VS. SHARMA CONSTRUCTION CO. (1975) 100 ITR 603 (GUJ ) : TC6R.634, K.B. STORES VS. CIT 1976 CTR (GAU) 20 : (1976) 103 ITR 505 (GAU) : TC6R.640, CIT VS. P.S. JAIN MOTORS (P.) LTD. (1981) 21 CTR (P&H) 132 : (1981) 130 ITR 842 (P & H) : TC6R.617 AND CIT VS. SHANTILAL J. MEHTA (1981) 24 CTR (BOM) 127 : (1981) 132 ITR 4 53 (BOM) : TC6R.642. THE ALLAHABAD FULL BENCH CASE HAS RELIED ON THE ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 36 OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) : TC6R.197], THAT THE EXPRES SION DENIAL OF LIABILITY IS COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO TAKE IN NOT O NLY THE TOTAL DENIAL OF LIABILITY BUT ALSO THE LIABILITY TO TAX UNDER PA RTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. IN EITHER CASE THE DENIAL IS A DENIAL OF LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN ONE CASE THE ASSESSE E SAYS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE ACT, AND IN ANOTHER CASE THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO TAX UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT IF THE OPTION GIVEN TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS JUDICIALLY EXERCISED. THE FULL BENCH DISTIN GUISHED THE TWO CASES TO THE CONTRARY IN NATIONAL PRODUCTS VS. CIT 1976 CTR (BOM) 179 : (1977) 108 ITR 935 (KAR) : TC6R.771 AND BHIKH OOBHAI N. SHAH VS. CIT 1978 CTR (GUJ) 172 : (1978) 114 ITR 197 (GU J): TC6R.687. IN THE KARNATAKA CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALINTEREST UNDER S. 139 OR UNDER S. 215 OF THE ACT IS MADE IN THE RE GULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER AND UNDER THESE TWO SECTIONS A DISCRETION IS VESTED IN THE ITO TO WAIVE OR REDUCE PENAL INTEREST. THIS IS NOT THE CA SE SO FAR AS LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST UNDER S. 217(1A) OF THE ACT IS CONCE RNED. HERE NO DISCRETION IS GIVEN FOR LEVYING OF INTEREST WHICH I S GIVEN AT A PARTICULAR RATE. THERE IS NO POWER GIVEN TO WAIVE OR REDUCE T HE RATE OF INTEREST. 9.14 NOW QUESTION BEFORE US TO SEE UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE ARE DIRECT JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT T HEN WHAT PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE ARE REQUIRED. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NOKAI CORPORATION V . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2007] 162 TAXMAN 369 (DELHI) AS UNDER:- THE SUPREME COURT STATED, MANY YEARS AGO, IN UNION OF INDIA V. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPN. LTD. [1991] (55) ELT 433 A S FOLLOWS : ...THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQUIRE T HAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES.... (P. 436) ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 37 IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT I F THE ORDER OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF FURTHE R APPEAL, THAT CANNOT FURNISH ANY GROUND FOR NOT FOLLOWING IT, UNL ESS ITS OPERATION HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY A COMPETENT COURT. THE SUPREM E COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT IF THIS HEALTHY RULE IS NOT FOLLOWED ; THE RESULT WILL NOT ONLY BE UNDUE HARASSMENT TO ASSESSEES BUT CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LAWS. IN CIT V.RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. [2007] 2 SCC 326, THE SUPREME COURT HELD : 9. WHEN AN ORDER IS PASSED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY, THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS BOUND THEREBY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRIN CIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE.... (P. 330) THE SUPREME COURT DREW SUPPORT FROM BHOPAL SUGAR IN DUSTRIES LTD. V. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD : IF A SUBORDINATE TRIBUNAL REFUSES TO CARRY OUT DIR ECTIONS GIVEN TO IT BY A SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE POWERS THE RESULT WILL BE CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.... (P. 622) IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED IN BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) : ...THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SITTING IN AP PEAL OVER THE TRIBUNAL AND WE DO NOT THINK THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THIS CASE, IT WAS OPEN TO HIM TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INJUSTICE IN DIS REGARDING THAT ORDER. AS WE HAVE SAID EARLIER, SUCH A VIEW IS DEST RUCTIVE OF ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTI CE. (P. 623) SIMILARLY, IN TRIVENI CHEMICALS LTD. V. UNION OF I NDIA [2007] 2 SCC 503, THE SUPREME COURT REITERATED THE PRINCIPLE THAT ADJUDICATING AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND BY THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. 9.15 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THERE IS DIRECT JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM (SUPRA), SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINEET TAL KIES VS. CIT, 148 ITR 66 ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 38 (M.P.) AND WE ARE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION. WE ARE , THEREFORE, LEGALLY AS WELL AS ON PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE BOUND TO FOLLOW TH E JUDGEMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE JUDG EMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM (S UPRA), SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINEET TALKIES VS. CIT, 148 ITR 66 (M.P.) AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE HOLD THAT APPEAL AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B & 234C IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 10. SINCE THE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE, UNDER T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED IN LIMIN E. 11. SINCE WE DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE GROUNDS RAISED ON ME RIT. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES ARE DISMISSED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* ITA NO.471/AGR/2010 & OTHERS M/S NAVEEN GLASS PRODUCTS & OTHERS 39 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY