Income‑tax‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Powers of CIT‑‑‑Interest levied ‑ under S.234B‑‑‑Appellate order reducing assessment as also interest under S.234B‑‑‑Order upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑‑‑CIT under S.264 cannot interfere with levy of interest under S.234B‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 234B & 264.

For, the assessment year 1993‑94, interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards delayed remittance of advance tax was levied. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) against the assessment was partly allowed. Consequently, a revised order giving effect to the appellate order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income‑tax. Interest under section 234B was also revised. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for wavier of interest. He had also filed a revision under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income‑tax which was rejected. According to the Commissioner of Income- tax, the assessment order in which the demand arose had been the subject- matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) as well as the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income‑tax held that he could not statutorily interfere with the levy of interest. Oil a writ petition against the order:

Held, dismissing the writ petition, that the order in appeal before the appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal comprised the order relating to the interest under section 234B of the Act. It was an integral part of the assessment and appellate orders. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income‑tax was justified in rejecting the revision petition. However, it was made clear that the petitioner could pursue his waiver application.

T.M. Sreedharan and N. Unnikrishnan for Petitioner.

P.K. Raveendranatha Menon for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an income‑tax assessee. For the assessment year 1993‑94, by Exh.Pl order interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards delayed remittance of advance tax was levied. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) against the assessment was partly allowed. Consequently, revised order giving effect to the appellate order was issued (Exh. P‑2), dated October 22, 1996, by the Deputy Commissioner. Interest under section 234B of the Act was also revised. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application Exh.P‑3, dated November 5, 1997, to waive the interest before the Chief Commissioner of Income‑tax. He had also filed a revision under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner on December 8, 1998, against Exh. P‑2 order. The Commissioner of Income‑tax by the impugned order Exh. P‑6 rejected the petition as inadmissible. According to the Commissioner, the assessment order in which the demand arose, has been the subject‑matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) as well as the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Income‑tax held that he cannot statutorily interfere with the levy of interest. The original petition is against this order

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision under section 264 of the Act is maintainable against any order by a subordinate officer and that his appeals were against the assessment orders. He could not have raised the issue of interest and the same could be raised only before the revisional authority. I am unable to accept the said stand. The order in appeal before the appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal comprises the order relating to the interest under section 234B of the Act. It is an integral part of the assessment and appellate orders as admitted in the original petition itself. Therefore, a statutory revision under section 264 of the Act cannot tie sustained against the interest. However, the petitioner has preferred a waiver application Exh. P‑3 by invoking the powers of the Commissioner. The said application is still pending. In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income‑tax. However, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to pursue his waiver application Exh. P‑3, this original petition is disposed of.

M.B.A./354/FCOrder accordingly.