ASSYSTEM ENGINEERING AMD OPERATION SERVICES,FRANCE V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 3392/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Assystem Engineering And Operation Services Tour Egee, a French company, appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which arose from an assessment order by the Assessing Officer. The primary contention was regarding the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer which included an additional interest demand under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the demand was based on incorrect calculations and that the orders were non-speaking and invalid. The CIT(A) had previously allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake apparent in the rectification order. However, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778757 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM MANOHAR SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Rectification of order; Audit objection

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3426/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assystem Engineering And Operation Services Tour Egee 9-11 Allee De Larche Courbevoie France- 92400 PAN No. AAJCA2418E Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) (1) International Taxation (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Incomer Tax-(Appeal) Delhi-42 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 07.03.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 05-08-2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), and erroneously upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) raising a demand of INR 43,98,450/- is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a non –descript and non- speaking order, without stating the decision in clear terms and hence the same is against the provisions enshrined vide section 250(6) of the Act. 3. That in the light of the statutory embargo created vide section 251(1)(a) of the Act the action of the Ld. CIT(A) of remanding the matter and directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh was not tenable. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the AO for levying additional interest of INR 43.98,450/- under section 234 D of the Act, without affording opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, was in violation to the provisions of section 154(3) of the Act and same was liable to be quashed. The CIT(A) further erred in erroneously upholding the said order passed by the AO. Printed from counselvise.com 3 5. That on a without prejudice basis the impugned demand of INR 43,98,450/- arising on account of incorrect calculation of interest under section 234 D of the Act, computed on the basis of an incorrect period (23 months as against the correct period of 8 months) and applying an incorrect rate 1% as against the prescribed rate of 0.5%), is grossly incorrect and not tenable in law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of France and is a tax resident therein it, is a leading player in engineering and innovation consulting and majorly has expertise in aeronautics, naval, defence energy and nuclear, automotive and engaged in providing major manufactures with services in engineering of complex infrastructures and outsourced research and development. During the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income on 29-12-2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and refund was credited in the bank account of the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and assessment was completed by Assessing Officer by calculated the interest u/s 234D of the Act on 15-12-2021. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filled the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his Printed from counselvise.com 4 order dated 07-03-2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under: “Based on the details discussion held above and submission filed by the appellant, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is directed to examine the facts of the case and reply filed by the assessee vis a vis audit objection and rectify the mistake apparent in rectification order if it is in accordance with the provision of Income Tax Act 1961. Hence all the grounds are disposed of. The Appeal is disposed of, accordingly.” 4. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter was wrongly sent to the Assessing officer because the impugned demand of Rs. 43,98,450/- was made on the incorrect calculation of interest under section 234 D of the Act. 6. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the matter was remanded back to the Assessing officer to examine the facts of Printed from counselvise.com 5 the case. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGGAR/ NEHA, Sr. PS Date:17.10.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "