M/S ASHOK KUMAR, AMIT KUMAR AND SHIPRA ESTATE PVT. LTD. V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IAPL/115/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Ashok Kumar, Amit Kumar, and Shipra Estate Pvt. Ltd. (appellants) challenging the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (respondent), regarding the validity of their income tax return and the imposition of interest under Section 234A of the IT Act, 1964. The appellants argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) improperly declared their original return invalid without following due process and that the filing of a revised return should relate back to the date of the original return, thus purging any defects. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the AO's actions were legally correct, as the self-assessment tax was not paid by the due date of the original return, and interest under Section 234A was mandatory.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753841 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1964
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment; Income tax appeal; Interest liability; Rectification Order; Self-assessment tax
• Section: 154; 139; 234A

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 7 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 115 of 2018 Appellant :- M/S Ashok Kumar, Amit Kumar And Shipra Estate Pvt. Ltd. through its Partner Mohit Singh; Registered Office at C-36 Patel Nagar II, Ghaziabad Respondent :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ghaziabad & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Shukla,Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agrawal Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: \"I. Whether the Assessing Officer has the authority to declare a return of income as invalid u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1964? II. Whether the Assessing Officer could have declared the original return of income invalid without following the due process of law as prescribed u/s 139 of the IT Act, 1964? III. Whether the filing of revised return of income would relate back to the date of filing of the original return of income thereby purging it of any defects? IV. Whether the Assessing Officer could have declared the original return of income as invalid after the revised return of income has been filed by the assessee before the due date? V. Whether the appellant firm is liable to pay interest under Section 234A of the IT Act, 1964 despite the payment of self assessment of tax has been made along and the revised return of income has been furnished before the due date?\" The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT'), in its judgment impugned before this Court has set forth the following findings which are supported by cogent reasons: \"4. We have gone through the record. The facts are simple and admitted. There is no denial of the fact that along with the original assessment that the assessee had shown to have paid a tax of Rs. 3,11,18,010/-. In the RAP audit, it was found to be incorrect. It was observed by the RAP Audit party that the assessee actually deposited self assessment tax of Rs. 3,36,47,930/- on 24.2.2011 but not as on the date of the original return. Even in the absence of any dispute on these facts, we failed to understand how the order of the ld. AO is legally wrong. It is not the penalty that the AO levied but it is only the interest u/s 234A. Under Section 139 (9)(c)(i) of the Act, the return not accompanied by the tax on self assessment claimed to have been paid is defective. Undisputedly, the assessee paid the tax on the self assessment on 24.4.2011 but not by the date of 15.10.2010. No doubt, the revised return will assume the character of the original assessment for the purpose of its nature, but nor for the interest liability u/s 234A of the Act, which is mandatory in nature. 5. Further, when the assessee had shown the payment of self assessment tax in the return dated 15.10.2010 but as a matter of fact deposited the same only on 24.10.2011, it is not open to the assessee to contend that it is not an error apparent on the fact of the record. Whatever may be the wordings in the notice, the nature of the proceedings are not vitiated and the learned AO is justified in passing the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, which is rightly confirmed by the learned CIT (A). We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the authorities below. We, therefore, while upholding the same, find the appeal devoid of merits. The same is accordingly dismissed.\" The findings of the learned ITAT speak eloquently for themselves. The reasonings provided by the learned ITAT are a complete answer to all the substantial questions of law framed in this case. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly in terms of the above finding of the learned ITAT. In such view of the matter, we answer all the substantial questions of law against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The appeal stands dismissed in terms of the observations made hereinabove. Order Date :- 18.1.2020 Pravin/Neeraj (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.) "