The Baba Nag Rice & Genral Mills, Amritsar. V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-v, Amritsar.

MA 28/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4394 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDERSHAN KAPOOR
• Section: 154; 143(3); 234B; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 28/Asr/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 375/Asr/2016) Assessment Year: 1998-99 Baba Naga Rice & General Mills Village Basarke Bhaini, Chheharta, Amritsar [PAN: AAEFB 8457G] Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-V, Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudershan Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This miscellaneous application was filed by the assessee for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 24.05.2018 in ITA No. 375/Asr/2016 for Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, no interest was payable u/s 234B(1) at the time of original assessment as the assessee was granted refund consequential to being extra amount of tax paid as per processing of the return of income. On reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated MA No. 28/Asr/2018 Baba Naga Rice & Gen. Mills v. ACIT 2 20.03.2006 demand was created and interest was charged u/s 234B(3). The ld. Counsel contended that in the present case interest payable u/s 234 B(1) could not be increased under sub section 3 of the section 234B as there was refund to the assessee on processing of return. He relied on various judgments. 3. Admittedly, the assessee’s return for the relevant year was processed u/s 143(1)(a) granting refund of Rs.3580/- (along with the interest u/s 244A). Assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 was made on 20.03.2006 at an income of Rs.61,29,267/-, entailing an additional tax liability of Rs.20,69,965/-. It is the interest u/s 234B on this additional tax, computed at Rs.22,45,912/-, that the assessee claims to be a mistake, liable, therefore, for rectification by way of withdrawal. 4. The tribunal has categorically held that the charge of interest on shortfall to the advance payment of the income u/s 234B is mandatory and compensatory. The tribunal has held that the issue involved is clearly a debatable issue on which two views are possible precluding section 154. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim was held to be not maintainable and the appeal dismissed. 5. Since the issue involved is being a legal and debatable issue which is beyond the scope of u/s 154 as rightly held by the tribunal in the impugned order. Adjudication of the issue would require to revisit the original order of the tribunal on merits and completely recall its order which is not in the powers of the tribunal under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act MA No. 28/Asr/2018 Baba Naga Rice & Gen. Mills v. ACIT 3 which only empowers to rectify or correct any apparent mistake from the record. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgement of “Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.”, [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) held that while considering application under section 254(2), Tribunal was not required to re-visit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under provision of section 254(2) were only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. In our view, there is no apparent from record, and as such the miscellaneous application of the assessee is required to be rejected. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.05.2022 (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 11.05.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File MA No. 28/Asr/2018 Baba Naga Rice & Gen. Mills v. ACIT 4 True Copy By Order