BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR V. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 129/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Babudeen & Party, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which upheld the charging of interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on a newly created demand following a set-aside assessment order. The original assessment order was set aside by the Rajasthan High Court, which directed a fresh assessment. The Tribunal examined whether interest could be charged on the original demand when the assessment was set aside and re-assessed. The Tribunal concluded that interest under section 220(2) should not be charged on the original demand following a set-aside, aligning with precedents and circulars that support charging interest only after the expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to a fresh assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315383 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Girnar Investment Ltd. vs CIT, CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar, PCIT Vs. AT & T Communication Services (India) (P) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: G.M. MEHTA; C.A
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment
• Section: 144; 143(3); 154; 68; 234B; 260A

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 129/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2000-01 Babudeen & Party 596/2, Malviya Nagar Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAB1827D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. G. M. Mehta, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A)] dated 03/12/2024 the assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2000-01. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the set-aside order by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in respect of total trading addition as not complete set-aside and thereby not deleting of interest charged under section 220(2) of IT Act like in other liquor cases set-aside by Hon’ble High Court. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating appeal of the Assessee AOP against order under sec. 154 of IT Act as appeal against levy of interest under section 220(2) of I.T. Act. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that ; a) Assessment order in this case was passed on 24.12.2018 u/s 254/144 of the IT Act, 1961 determining income of Rs. 3,10,44,301/- and demand was raised of Rs. 4,06,82,070/- on 24.12.2018. b) The assessment order passed u/s 144 because the assessee was not found on the last address available and various notices was served through affixture. c) Thereafter, an application u/s 154 on 22.01.2019 stating that no interest u/s 220(2) of IT Act, 1961 is chargeable for the reason that before the completion of such assessment, no demand would remain outstanding and therefore charging interest of Rs. 2,66,65,850/- u/s 220(2) on newly created demand is a mistake apparent from record and liable to be deleted. 3 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO d) Ld. AO noted that contention of the assessee but not found acceptable. In this case, original assessment was made on 28.03.2003 at total income of Rs. 3,79,39,455/. After, appellate order passed by CIT(A) and ITAT, Hon'ble High Court set aside the particular issue to the AO for assessment. Set aside order was passed on 24.12.2018. e) It is not a case where the assessee paid entire demand as per original assessment order within 30 days issue of original demand notice. In this case, the original demand made by the AO on the basis of assessment order was merely kept in abeyance or suspension during the entire proceedings by way of appeal or revision taken against the assessment and gets revived from inception i.e. date of original order, when the assessment get finally confirmed in those proceedings. When the assessment order is finally affirmed, the doctrine of merger also applies and interest being compensatory in nature, the revenue is entitled to charge the same from the date of original order which merged with the final assessment order. f) In this case, set aside assessment order is merged with original order and the assessee becomes liable to pay interest u/s 220(2) from the date of original order. Thus the assessee was correctly held 4 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO liable to pay interest u/s 220(2) from the date of original assessment order. This view has been confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s Girnar Investment Ltd. vs CIT and by many other courts. g) Thus, ld. AO held that there is no merit in contention of the AR and interest u/s 220(2) has been charged correctly and as such there is no mistake apparent from record. Hence application u/s 154 was rejected. 4. Aggrieved from that order passed u/s. 154 of the Act denying to correct charge of interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee, he filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “5.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and evidences on record. The appellant submitted that the application dated 22nd January 2019 u/s. 154 of Act for wrongfully charging of interest under section 220(2) of Act was rejected by the AO ignoring the fact that the fresh assessment on the set-aside and restored proceedings as not fresh assessment proceedings. I find that against returned income of Rs.6,87,900, assessment was completed under section 143(3) át taxable income of Rs.3,79,39,455 (including addition of Rs.68,95,154/- under section 68 of Act). In first appeal before Ld.CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, the addition under section 68 of Act was totally deleted whereas the trading addition of Rs.3,03,56,401 was reduced to lump-sum addition of Rs.5,00,000. Against trading addition sustained by Ld. CIT (A), the Department was in second appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereas, the Appellant was in cross objection (C.O.) before the Hon'ble ITAT. Hon’ble ITAT had enhanced the trading addition. Both the Department and appellant AOP preferred appeal under section 260A of IT Act before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, vide D.B. Income tax Appeal No. 6/2016 5 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO and D.B. Income tax Appeal No. 42/2016 dated 21.08.2017 (with other bunch of liquor cases), restored the case of the appellant along with other liquor contractors to the Assessing Officer with the following directions: \"In view of the subsequent development of law and evidence, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the Assessing Officer. All parties will appear before the Assessing Officer in the first week of November 2017. All the parties will produce all documents before the authority on which they want to rely upon and the Assessing Officer will hear both the sides and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and if any statement is to be relied upon, will also grant opportunity to cross examine. We make it clear that in view of the order of High Court, the Tribunal has not considered the same; therefore, we are remitting back the matter to the authority since both the sides have preferred the appeal against the order of Tribunal. To give effect to the order the authority will hear the parties afresh without being influenced by the order of CIT(A) or this court\". 5.3 Therefore, I do not find merit in the claim of the appellant that the original orders of the AO was set aside and cancelled by the Hon'ble High Court but the Hon'ble High Court only restored it back to the AOwith regard to the issue in appeal the other issues already decided by lower authorities were not in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. I find that the Order of the Hon'ble high Court nowhere mentioned that the assessment order is set aside denovo, 5.4 Circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982 of the Central Board of Direct taxes (reported at 135 ITR 10(St) reads as under: Levy of interest under sub-section (2) when original assessment is set aside/cancelled: 1. Doubts have been raised as to the quantum of interest chargeable under section 220(2) when the original assessment order passed by the Income tax officer is- (a) Cancelled by him under section 146; (b) Set aside/ cancelled by an appellate/revisional authority and such appellate/revisional order has become final; or (c) Set aside by one appellate authority but, on further appeal, the order setting aside and assessment is varied by second appellate authority and the demand gets finally determined. 6 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO 2. These issues were comprehensively examined in consultation with the Ministry of law and the Board has been advised: 1. Where and assessment order is cancelled under section 146 or cancelled/set-aside by an appellate/revsional authority and the cancellation/setting aside becomes final (i.e. it is not varied as a result of further appeals/revisions), no interest under section 220(2)can be charged pursuant to the original demand raised. The necessary corollary of this position will be that even when the assessment is reframed, interest can be charged only after expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to such fresh assessment order. 2. Where the assessment made originally by the Income tax Officer is either varied or even set aside by one appellate authority but on further appeal, the original order of the Income tax Officer is restored either in part or wholly, the interest payable under section 220(2) will be computed with reference to the due date reckoned from the original demand notice and with reference to the tax finally determined. The fact that during an intervening period, there was no tax payable by the assessee under any operative order would make no difference to this position. 3. The forgoing legal position will apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings under other direct taxes also. 5.5 The appellant also relied on the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar (2010) 325 ITR 346 (Raj) where in it was held that as per Circular No. 334 dated April 3 1982, interest under section 220(2) could be charged only after expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to the such fresh assessment order. 5.6 I find that present case is not a case of total cancellation or setting aside of the Assessment Order fully. It was for a limited purpose that the Hon'ble High Court has remitted the matter back to the AO. Therefore, such remittance back in may considered opinion will not amount to setting aside the Assessment Order altogether. Therefore, the question of suspension of the levy of interest for the interim period, could not arise. Circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982 of the Central Board of Direct taxes (reported at 135 ITR 10(St) in para 2.2 lays down that where the assessment made originally by the Income tax Officer is either varied or even set aside by one appellate authority but on further appeal, the original order of the Income tax Officer is restored either in part or wholly, the interest payable under section 220(2) will be computed with reference to the due date reckoned from the original demand notice and with reference to the tax finally determined. The fact that during an intervening period, there was no tax 7 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO payable by the assessee under any operative order would make no difference to this position. 5.7 Notwithstanding the above, I am of the considered view thatif the levy itself is challenged, the levy of interest consequentially could only be challenged and if the tax liability is reduced or enhanced, the quantum of interest could go up or down, but without making a challenge to the tax liability itself in the present appeal, the levy of interest independently cannot be challenged before the CIT (Appeals). The appellant could have challenged the same in the quantum appeal but has not done so. The judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar (supra), relied upon by the appellant, was rendered in a different factual background. The assessments were set aside entirely by the Tribunal twice over, in the case before the Rajasthan High Court and thereupon a fresh Assessment Order was passed, in pursuance of the said remand order and in that context, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that as per Sub-Para(i) of Circular No.334 dated 03.04.1982, the interest under Section 220(2) of the Act could not be levied for the past period. The facts of the present case are different and there is no complete setting aside of the Assessment Order in the present case. 5.8 In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the appeal on Ground No 1 and 2 are is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is treated as dismissed. 6. Conclusion: In the result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove challenging the levy of interest. To support the grounds ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission which reads as under : Assessee AOP had Liquor contract for Jaisalmer and District for a year relevant to AY. 2000-01. As against returned income of Rs.6,87,900/- assessment was completed at Rs.3,79,39,455/- by order dated 28.03.2003 under sec. 143(3) of 8 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO Act. In appeal before CIT(A), the trading addition was reduced to Rs.5,00,000/- and addition of Rs.68,95,154/- u/s. 68 of I.T. Act for initial investment of capital by the members of assessee AOP was deleted. In second appeal department challenged the trading addition reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. This Hon’ble ITAT enhanced trading addition to Rs.70,00,000/-. Against the order of Hon’ble ITAT, the assessee as well as the Deptt. both preferred appeal under sec. 260A of IT Act before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court who set-aside the order (AO para 3.4,page 4) and directed to hear the parties afresh without being influence by the order of CIT(A) or of this court. In set-aside proceedings, assessment in this case was completed at same business income of Rs.3,10,44,301/-. On the assessed income of Rs.3,10,44,301/- in set-aside proceedings, ld. AO charged interest of Rs.2,66,65,850/-. Since in none of the bunch of liquor cases set-aside by Hon’ble High Court, interest u/s. 220(2) was charged except interest u/s. 234B of Act, therefore, application u/s. 154 of Act was moved to the ld. AO but the same was dismissed. The appeal against dismissal of application u/s. 154 of Act was also dismissed by ld. CIT(A) by holding that if the tax liability is reduced or enhanced, the interest u/s. 220(2) of IT Act will go down or up. At para 5.7 of ld. CIT(A)’s held that appellant could have challenged levy of interest in quantum appeal but has not done so whereas no appeal lies directly against order charging interest u/s. 220(2) of Act. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: Ground No. (1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the set-aside order by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in respect of total trading addition as not complete set-aside and thereby not deleting of interest charged under section 220(2) of IT Act like in other liquor cases set-aside by Hon’ble High Court: Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in its order dated 21.08.2017 had remitted the matter back to the ld. AO and held as under (P.B. page 4 to 7): “In view of the subsequent development of law and evidence, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the Assessing Officer. All parties will appear before the Assessing Officer in the first week of November 2017. All the parties will produce all documents before the authority on which they want to rely upon and the Assessing Officer will hear both the sides and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and if any statement is to be relied upon, will also grant opportunity to cross examine. We make it clear that in view of the order of High Court, the Tribunal has not considered the same; therefore, we are remitting back the matter to the authority since both the sides have preferred the appeal against the order of Tribunal. To give effect to the order the authority will hear the parties afresh without being influenced by the order of CIT(A) or this court”. 9 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO Ld. AO, at para 3.4 of order dated 24.12.2018 under sec. 143(3)/254/144 of Act (P.B. page 8 to 12) had admitted “The Honorable High Court, vide order dt. 21.08.2017 in DB income tax appeal no. 6/2016, set-aside the issue of NP estimation to the Assessing Officer with the following direction” Since liquor contracts in Rajasthan are for a year or two, therefore, no notice in set-aside proceedings was served on the assessee AOP at earlier address but was sent by ld. AO to undersigned only. In set-aside proceedings also, ld. AO assessed same income from trading of liquor at Rs.3,10,44,301/- and charged interest of Rs.2,66,65,850/-under section 220(2) as well as under sec. 234B of I.T. Act. For charging interest under sec. 220(2) of IT Act, application u/s. 154 of IT Act was submitted to the ld. AO on 22nd January 2019 pointing out the mistake apparent from records for charging interest u/s. 220(2) of IT Act (P. B. page 13), which is chargeable on old outstanding demand only and not on fresh created demands for which interest u/s. 234B of Act has already been charged but in avoidance of Circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982 (P.B. page 14) and other judicial pronouncements, ld. AO rejected the rectification application. GROUND No. (2) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating appeal of the Assessee AOP against order under sec. 154 of IT Act as appeal against levy of interest under section 220(2) of I.T. Act though it was against order u/s. 154 of I.T. Act Ld. CIT(A) at para 5.6 of page No. 9 of order appealed against has held that it is not a case of total cancellation of setting aside of the Assessment order fully. It was for a limited purpose that the Hon’ble High Court has remitted the matter back to the AO therefore it will not amount to setting aside the Assessment order. At para 5.7, following the finding of Ld. CIT(A) Section 246A (1) (a) to (r) of Income tax Act deals with the orders against which appeal can be preferred to CIT(A) but in none of the clause, appeal could be filed before CIT (A) against the order levying interest under sec. 220(2) of I.T. Act. 5.7 “Notwithstanding the above, I am of the considered view that if the levy itself is challenged, the levy of interest consequentially could only be challenged and if the tax liability is reduced or enhanced, the quantum of interest could go up or down, but without making a challenge to the tax liability itself in the present appeal, the levy of interest independently cannot be challenged. Nowhere, levy of interest has been challenged in first appeal. Appeal is against order rejecting application u/s. 154 of IT Act. It is relevant to refer that in no liquor case of identical nature and facts (set-aside by a common order of Hon’ble High 10 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO Court) interest under section 220(2) of Act was charged in fresh assessment after set-aside by Hon’ble High court. Only interest under sec. 234B of Act was charged in those cases. Reliance is placed on the following: (1) Circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982 : Levy of interest u/s. 220(2) when original assessment order is set-aside. (2) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar (2010) 325 ITR 346(Raj): Effect of circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982. Interest due from date of fresh order passed after remand. CBDT Circular No. 334 (P.B. page 15 to 18) (3) Pr. CIT Vs. AT & T Communication services (India) (P) Ltd. (2023) 332 CTR (Del) 129/(2023) 451 ITR 92 (Del): Interest under section 220(2)- chargeability- Set-aside assessment vis a vis fresh assessment order- No interest is payable on the demand raised by original order when the original order of the AO is set aside by the appellate authority and a fresh assessment order is passed- Liability of the assessee to pay interest under section 220(2) can be levied only after expiry of the time prescribed in the fresh demand notice. Therefore, in set-aside proceedings where income is assessed afresh, no interest u/s. 220(2) of I.T. Act could be charged when interest under sec 234B of Act has been charged. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records: S. No. Particulars/Short description/document P. B. Page 1 Written synopsis in support of grounds of appeal 1 to 3 2 Order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court-relevant part 3 to 7 3 Order dated 24.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of ld. AO-A.Y 2000-01 8 to 12 4 Chandigarh Bench in case of Anil Verma vs. Dy. CIT 64 to 78 5 Application dated 22.01.2019 u/s 154 of IT. Act 13 6 Circular No. 334 dated 3rd April 1982 of CBDT. 14 7 Rajasthan High Court in case of Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar 15 to 18 11 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that when the matter is set a side for framing the assessment denovo no interest u/s. 220(2) can be levied. To drive home to this contention he relied upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar 325 ITR 346(Raj). He also serviced latest decision of Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. AT and T Communication Services (India) P. Ltd. 451 ITR 92 (Delhi). Based on those decision he submitted that the interest charged u/s. 220(2) is required to be reduced from the notice of demand raised by the revenue. 8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). She vehemently argued that the contention of the assessee that the order was required to be afresh is not verdict of the High Court and therefore, she supported the finding of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal the solitary issue raised by the assessee is charge 12 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO of interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act from the date of original order to the order passed in the set aside proceedings. Ld. AO while dealing with the application u/s. 154 of the Act held that Hon’ble High Court has set aside the issue and therefore, the order was not set aside. Since that was the contention, it would be appropriate to reiterate the direction of the High Court which reads as under : In view of the subsequent development of law and evidence, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the Assessing Officer. All parties will appear before the Assessing Officer in first week of November, 2017. All the parties will produce all documents before the authority on which they want to rely upon and the Assessing Officer will hear both the sides and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and if any statement is to be relied upon, will also grant opportunity to cross examine. We make it clear that in view of the order of High Court, the Tribunal has not considered the same, therefore, we are remitting back the matter to the authority since both the sides have preferred the appeal against the order of Tribunal. To give effect to the order the authority will hear the parties afresh without being influence by the order of CIT(A) or of this Court. As is evident from the above direction of the High Court that both the parties have preferred the appeal before the High Court and therefore, High Court has set aside the order back to the file of the ld. aO. Thus, it is clear that the assessment was required to be done a fresh and therefore, the interest on the original order does not survive and no interest u/s. 220(2) can be charged. We get support of our view from the decision of our own 13 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Dinesh Kumar [ 221 CTR 78 (Rajasthan) ] wherein our High Court held that ; 2. It is contended that the learned Tribunal was in error in holding that interest under section 220(2) can be awarded only from the due date of demand notice issued for the reframed assessment order on the amount finally determined as taxable, and not from the due date of the original assessment order. 3. The necessary facts in brief are, that the AO made a block assessment vide order dt. 28th May, 1998, that assessment was set aside by the Tribunal, and the matter was sent back to the AO to examine the matter afresh. Thereafter, the assessment was again made for the same income. Again that order was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 31st March, 2005, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO with certain directions. Thereafter, the AO passed a fresh assessment order determining the total undisclosed income at Rs. 35, 63; 120. It may be noticed that earlier the income determined was at Rs. 1,56,36,101. The question that arises and arose before the Tribunal was, as to whether the interest on this amount of Rs. 35,63,120 is required to be computed from the date, the amount became due pursuant to the original assessment order dated 28th May, 1998, or from the date when it became due pursuant to the fresh assessment order passed after remand. The learned Tribunal found relying upon the Circular No. 334, dated 3rd April, 1982 [1982] 29 CTR (TLT) 48]that the matter is covered by para 2(i) thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the matter is covered by para 2(ii) thereof and not sub-para (i). 5. In order to appreciate the contentions, we may gainfully quote the para 2 of the said circular in its entirety, which reads as under: \"2. These issues were comprehensively examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the Board has been advised : (i) where an assessment order is cancelled under section 146 or cancelled/set aside by an appellate/revisional authority and the cancellation/setting aside becomes final (i.e. it is not varied as a result of further appeals/revisions), no interest under section 220(2) can be charged pursuant to the original demand notice. The necessary corollary of this position will be that even when the assessment is reframed, interest can be charged only after the expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to such fresh assessment order. (ii) where the assessment made originally by the ITO is either varied or even set aside by one appellate authority but, on further appeal, the original order of the ITO is restored either in part or wholly, the interest payable under section 220(2) will be computed with reference to the due date reckoned from the original demand notice and with reference to the tax finally determined. The fact that during an intervening period, there was no tax payable by the assessee under any operative order would make no difference to this position.\" 14 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO 6. After going through the said paras, it is clear that sub-para (ii) becomes applicable only in the eventuality, where the original assessment order is varied, or set aside by the appellate authority, and on further appeal the original order of the AO is restored, either wholly or in part. In the present case, it is not shown that the original assessment order was at all restored on further appeal against the order of the Tribunal, whether dated 31st March, 2005, or the earlier one, whether wholly or in part, rather undisputedly that order of the Tribunal became final, and it was only in compliance of the order of the Tribunal, that fresh assessment order was passed. In our view, in that event, the matter is squarely covered by the later part of sub-para (i), which comprehends a situation, where even when the assessment is refrained pursuant to setting aside of the order by the appellate Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. ITO [2001] 166 CTR (SC) 1 : [2001] 3 SCC 76. 8. Even after going through that judgment, we are of the view that, that judgment rather goes against the Revenue, and supports the impugned order of the Tribunal, instead of supporting the contentions of the Revenue. Thus, this contention doesn't hold good. 9. So far as the other two questions framed in the appeals are concerned, having gone through the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 31st March, 2005, which was made available for our perusal, in our view, we do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeals thus, have no force and are dismissed summarily. Respectfully following the above judgement as referred by the assessee in written submission which was also subsequently followed by the Delhi High Court while dealing with he case of PCIT Vs. AT and T Communication Services (India) P. Ltd. 451 ITR 92 (Delhi). As there is no contrary binding precedent cited we follow our High Court decision and thereby allow the appeal of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/05/2025. 15 ITA No. 129/JP/2025 Babudeen and Party vs. ITO Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/05/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Babudeen & Party, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 129/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "