IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 188 of 2007 1. Director of Income Tax International Taxation Delhi-II, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-I Dehradun. … Appellants Vs M/s Western Geco International Ltd. 4th Floor The Capital Court, LSC Phase III Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi as an Agent of Mr. Chase Currier Allen. … Respondent Along with Income Tax Appeal No. 200 of 2007 Director of Income Tax & another … Appellants Vs M/s Western Geco International Ltd. 4th Floor The Capital Court, LSC Phase III Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi as an Agent of Mr. Wyunn Zaw. … Respondent Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax/appellants. Sri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Date August 21, 2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Both these appeals, preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) are directed against the order dated 26-4-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ‘C’) (for short ITAT), in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 3039 to 3073/Del/2006 whereby the ITAT has dismissed as 35 appeals filed by the revenue against the respondents by a common order. Since the controversy 2 involved in these appeals is the same and between the same parties as well as relating to the same Assessment Year 2003- 04 and as the question of law to be answered in all these appeals is the same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By the order impugned in these appeals, the learned ITAT has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CITA) observing that there is no infirmity in the order of the CITA deleting the interest charged under Section 234B of the Act. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The only question of law to be answered in these appeals is as under:- Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has wrongly held that the interest under Section 234B of the Act is not payable on the tax payable by the respondent assessee, particularly after the tax is deducted at source? 5. Relevant facts giving to the present appeals are that the assesses are the employees of Western Geco International Ltd., who filed a return of income tax on behalf of the employees for the assessment year 2003-04. In the return, exemption under Section 10(10CC) of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer (for short A.O.) noticed that no exemption under the said provision of the Act was available to the assessees and a notice under Section under Section 148 of the Act was issued requiring them to file a return as specified in the notice. The notice was replied that the original return 3 submitted to the A.O. be treated as final return. The A.O. after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, did not find favour with the assessees and the A.O. did not allow the exemption on the perquisite claimed by them and after applying principle of multiple stage grossing up’, the income was assessed as mentioned the Assessment Order. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessees filed appeals before the CITA. The CITA vide its order dated 21-7-2006 partly allowed the appeals. The Revenue preferred the appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT also did not find favour with the Revenue and dismissed all the appeals by the order dated 26-4-2007, which is impugned in these appeals before this Court. 6. In the course of arguments, Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Western Geco International Ltd., submitted that all these appeals are covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 20-7-2004 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. [2004] 271 ITR 0395]. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by the subsequent Division Bench judgment dated 8-8-2008 passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2007, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another Vs. M/s Oil Ltd., C/O M/s Nangia & Co., CA’s, 75/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that all these appeals may be dismissed on merits in terms of the judgment dated 8- 8-2008 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that this Court, relying upon the said order dated 8-8-2008 has dismissed a bunch of as many as 32 appeal preferred by the revenue/appellants by judgment and order dated 7-8-2009 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 194 of 2007 Director of Income Tax International 4 Taxation Delhi-II, New Delhi and another Vs. M/s Western Geco International Ltd. along with 31 other appeals. 7. Sri Arvind Vashist learned counsel for the appellants-revenue has fairly conceded to the above fact. 8. We have perused the aforesaid judgments. The Division Bench of this Court has answered the question of law against the revenue in the cases referred to above. We also find that almost identical question of law was framed in Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2007, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another Vs. M/s Oil Ltd., C/O M/s Nangia & Co., CA’s, 75/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. We also find that identical controversy is involved in the cases at hand and it is not necessary to record the same findings in the appeals at hand. Accordingly, we are of the view that the controversy involved in these two appeals stood resolved by the order dated 8-8-2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2007, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another Vs. M/s Oil Ltd., C/O M/s Nangia & Co., CA’s, 75/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. We, accordingly, hold that the ITAT has rightly held that the interest under Section 234B of the Act is not payable on the tax payable by the respondent assessee, particularly after the tax is deducted at source. The question of law is answered against the revenue. Hence both the appeals preferred by the revenue are liable to be dismissed on merits in terms of the said order. 9. Both the appeals (I.T.A. Nos. 188 of 2007 and 200 of 2007) preferred by revenue/appellants are dismissed on 5 merits in terms of the judgment dated 8-8-2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 56 of 2007, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another Vs. M/s Oil Ltd., C/O M/s Nangia & Co., CA’s, 75/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma, J.) (B.C.Kandpal, J.) RCP