JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY V. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

ITA 134/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jacob Thomas, the appellant, who contested the levy of interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO following an assessment for the year 2017-18. Initially, Jacob Thomas filed his income tax return declaring an income of Rs. 18,00,000, which was later assessed, resulting in a refund that included interest under section 244A. However, the AO later identified the need to charge interest under section 234D due to the refund issued. Jacob Thomas's objections to this charge were rejected by the AO, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A), which was also unsuccessful. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the lower authorities' actions, emphasizing the automatic and mandatory nature of the interest charge under section 234D as per the Supreme Court's precedent in CIT v. Anjum MH Ghaswala.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 316005 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Anjum MH Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIT KUMAR DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAKANNAN
• Section: 143(3); 154; 244A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA No. 134/Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [PAN: ACKPT3269L] vs. ACIT, Ward-1 & TPS, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 27.12.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 06.11.2017 declaring income of Rs. 18,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (hereinafter called \"the AO\") vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). While 2 ITA No. 134/Coch/2024 Jacob Thomas doing so, the appellant was granted refund of Rs. 40,52,550/- including interest of Rs. 2,65,120/- u/s. 244A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO noticed that interest leviable u/s. 234D of the Act was not charged. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 154, of the Act proposing to levy interest u/s. 234D of the Act was issued on 03.06.2021. In response to the notice u/s. 154 the appellant filed objections before the AO. However, the AO rejected the objections filed by the assessee and levied interest u/s. 234D of the Act vide order dated 05.10.2021. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. It is contended that the AO ought not have exercised jurisdiction u/s. 154 of the Act to levy interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR objected the above submissions. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The only issue that arises for our determination is whether the AO was justified in charging interest u/s. 234D of the Act by resorting to the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant was granted refund along with interest u/s. 3 ITA No. 134/Coch/2024 Jacob Thomas 234A of the Act. However, in the assessment made u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the returned income was enhanced on account of additions made in the assessment. Consequently there was no refund due to him, as the assessed tax liability is more than the tax liability determined u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Consequently the amount refunded to the assessee is liable to be refunded with interest u/s. 234D of the Act. The levy of interest u/s. 234D is automatic and mandatory at the rate stipulated therein as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum MH Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352. Therefore, the failure of the AO to charge interest u/s. 234D in the original assessment order, does give rise to a mistake apparent from record, which is capable of being rectified under the provisions of section 154 of the Act, therefore, the AO was justified in levying interest u/s. 234D of the Act by resorting to the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Thus, we do not find merit in the present appeal filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 14th May, 2025 n.p. 4 ITA No. 134/Coch/2024 Jacob Thomas Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "