9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 191 - AT - Income TaxInterest - whether taxes paid before due date of filing of return should be treated as advance tax even though paid after close of financial year - AO charged interest u/ss 234A 234B & 234C Supreme Court in the case of in Dr. Pronnoy Roy s case (2001 -TMI - 13018 - DELHI High Court) held that interest is not leviable under section 234A as long as tax was made good by payment within the time allowable for filing of return Accordingly it was held that the assessee is not liable for interest u/s 234A As per section 211 advance tax has to be paid on or before 15th September or on or before 15 December and on or before 15 March at the ratio of 30% 60% and 100% respectively - assessee is liable to pay interest under section 234B as well as under section 234C in respect of the taxes paid after the end of FY as they are not treated as advance tax - In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of apparent mistakes in charging interest under sections 234A and 234B of the IT Act. 2. Treatment of tax paid before the due date of filing returns while calculating interest under section 234A. 3. Consideration of judicial precedents in determining the treatment of tax payments. 4. Adjustment of tax paid under section 140A towards interest chargeable under section 234B. 5. Comprehensive appreciation of submissions made by the appellant. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rectification of Apparent Mistakes in Charging Interest Under Sections 234A and 234B: The assessee challenged the rejection of rectification of apparent mistakes by the AO in charging interest under sections 234A and 234B. The AO had charged interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C based on the assessed income and tax liability, treating certain tax payments as advance tax while excluding others. The assessee contended that the AO had incorrectly computed the interest amounts, particularly under section 234B, which led to a significant discrepancy. 2. Treatment of Tax Paid Before the Due Date of Filing Returns While Calculating Interest Under Section 234A: The core issue was whether taxes paid before the due date of filing returns should be treated as advance tax, even if paid after the close of the financial year. The assessee argued that taxes paid before the due date should reduce the assessed tax for calculating interest under section 234A. The AO and CIT(A) held that taxes paid after the financial year could not be treated as advance tax. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT & Anr. v. Prannoy Roy & Anr., which held that no interest under section 234A should be charged if taxes were paid before the due date of filing returns. 3. Consideration of Judicial Precedents in Determining the Treatment of Tax Payments: The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Dr. Pronnoy Roy v. CIT and the Mumbai ITAT's decision in Nitin Murli Reheja, to support their claim that taxes paid before the due date should be treated as advance tax. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation for section 234A, citing the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Delhi High Court's judgment. However, it distinguished this from sections 234B and 234C, where interest is calculated from the end of the financial year. 4. Adjustment of Tax Paid Under Section 140A Towards Interest Chargeable Under Section 234B: The assessee contended that the tax paid under section 140A before the due date should not be adjusted first towards interest under section 234B. The AO had treated the tax paid as self-assessment tax and adjusted it towards interest first. The Tribunal upheld the AO's treatment, stating that any tax paid after the end of the financial year could not be considered advance tax for sections 234B and 234C. The Gujarat High Court's decision in Rosanlal S. Jain & Ors. v. DCIT supported this view, affirming that taxes paid after the financial year-end are not advance tax. 5. Comprehensive Appreciation of Submissions Made by the Appellant: The Tribunal acknowledged the detailed submissions made by the appellant, including the reliance on judicial precedents and the interpretation of statutory provisions. The Tribunal's decision reflected a thorough consideration of these submissions, ultimately concluding that while the assessee's interpretation held for section 234A, it did not extend to sections 234B and 234C. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing that the sum paid on 26.10.1994 should be excluded from computing interest under section 234A but not for sections 234B or 234C. This nuanced judgment balanced the interpretation of statutory provisions with judicial precedents, providing clarity on the treatment of tax payments relative to interest calculations under different sections of the IT Act.
|
