Sr. No. Jat_ ; Orders / * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI hA 80/2002 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL fl. .. Appellant. Through Mr5JagdishRai Go Advocate. versus GOLD TEX FURNISHING INDUSTRIES .... Respondent Through Mr.CS.Aggarwal w • MrAnil Sharma. Advocates. • CORAM: HON'BLE MR.. JUSTICE D..K. JAIN • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHARDA AGGARWAL ORDER • . 21.08.2002 • This isan appeal by the Rovo,ue under Sect - . 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Ac challenging the order passed by the Income • Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B (for short Tribunal), dated 23 August 2001, deleting the intei -------------------------- charged under Section 234B and 234C of the Act. We find that while granting relief to assessee, the Tribunal has relied on the decision • . . the Supreme Court ir Comm.j.•s.ko.. tie.c.f ....nc..o.tae....Ta . . .... • . Vs Ranc.hiClubLtd, (2001) 247 ITR 209, 4herein • • decisions of the PatnaHigh Court inRa .nc.hi.... ...01.0.L c..o.: mi..s..A.o.. ner.f...........ç.o.meTa . (1996) 217 ITR 72 • a.nd .c.o.mm i..s..A.o..er • .. .ticm.Ta . , (1996) 222 hR 44 have been affirmed. 1 th ion I Tax the est the of rs. two td. and of t)ivedi's-H.C.D.-07-02 11 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Sr. No. •_ Orders In Uday Mistanna Bhandar and Complex (supra), while analysing 'the provisions of Section 234A, 234B and 234C vis-vis Section 156 of the Act, it was held that notice of,demand claiming interest can be issued only when there is order in the assessment order levying interest. This view has been upheld by the Apex Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), It is pertinent to note that a full Bench of the Patna High Court inSm .t..Tè.j ....Kumar .. .r .........•s .çm mks ..sb . ner........ o.f. Income .Tax&Ors., (2001) 247 ITR 210 has again reiterated the view taken by the Division Benches in the afore-noted cases. Admittedly, in the present case there is. no direction in the assessment order for charging of interest underSection 234A, 234B of the Act. In view of the afore-noted author itativ pronouncements, no question of law, much loss a substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Dismissed. SHAARWAL, 3 AUGUST. 21, 2002 , ss , . . ivedi's-H.C.D.-07-02