IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 3. 
         ITA 931/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF 
 INCOME TAX                                        ..... Appellant 
 Through       Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate 
 versus 
 . 
 ASIAN TECHNOCRATES P.LTD.    ..... Respondent 
 Through              Ms. Poonam Ahiya with 
 Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates 
 AND 
 4. 
 ITA 932/2010 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 
 TAX DELHI I                                        ..... Appellant 
 Through       Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 ASIAN TECHNOCRATES P.LTD.       ..... Respondent 
 Through              Ms. Poonam Ahiya with 
 Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                     26.07.2010 
 . 
 ITA 931-932/2010                                                        Page 1 
 of 3 
 CM 12545/2010 in ITA 932/2010 
 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 CM 12544/2010 in ITA 931/2010 and CM 12546/2010 in ITA 932/2010 
 . 
 These are the application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeals. 
 Having heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for Revenue and Ms. 
 Poonam Ahiya, learned counsel for assessee and regard being had to the facts and 
 circumstances, we are of the considered    opinion    that   there    is 
 sufficient   cause   warranting condonation of delay  and  accordingly,  delay 
 in refiling the appeals stands condoned. 
 Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. 
 ITAs 931/2010 and 932/2010 
 . 
 . 
 In these appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 the only issue that emerges for consideration is whether the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (for short ?tribunal?) is justified in dislodging the 
 direction as regard the imposition of interest, a notional one. 
 On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal it transpires that 
 ITA 931-932/2010                                                        Page 2 
 of 3 
 it had placed reliance on the decision rendered in High Ways Construction Co. 
 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 199 ITR 702 (Gauhati) and B and 
 A Plantations and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 242 ITR 
 22 (Gauhati) wherein the High Court expressed the view that there is no 
 provision in the Income Tax Act empowering the income tax authorities to include 
 in the income interest which was not due or not collected. 
 In the case at hand, nothing has been brought on record that the assessee 
 had bargained for interest or collected the interest.  When the interest was 
 not  due  or  collected,  we   are   afraid,   the  proposition canvassed by the 
 Revenue would not confer any kind of assistance.  In our considered opinion, the 
 view expressed by the tribunal is absolutely tenable and does not warrant 
 interference.  Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 JULY 26, 2010 
 rn 
 . 
 ITA 931-932/2010                                                        Page 3 
 of 3 
 . 
 #6 
 $