2015 (10) TMI 2427 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - rectification application before the Assessing Officer in respect of the quantum of interest charged under Section 234A - Held that - CIT (Appeals) has specifically considered the contention of the assessee regarding the excessive charging of interest under Section 234A of the Act and also the applicability of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V Pranoy Roy & Another in 2008 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT and rendered a finding against the assessee. It is also seen that the learned CIT (Appeals) has rendered a specific finding with reasons, as to why the computation of interest as adopted by the Assessing Officer is correct. Further, in the impugned order, the Tribunal has rendered a specific finding that the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals), either on facts in respect of the calculation of interest under Section 234A of the Act or in law in respect of the judicial decisions cited by the assessee and has therefore upheld the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals). In the present M.P. also the assessee has not made out any case that the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) and the impugned order of the Tribunal are on facts, which are wrongly considered. In view of the facts of the matter as discussed above and the clear findings recorded no merit in the contentions made by the assessee in the present M.P. In our view, a clear finding has been rendered on all issues under appeal, based on an evaluation of the facts emanating from the submissions made, before the learned CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal and the material on record. Seeking re-evaluation of the facts or to make fresh submissions on the same set of issues and facts amount to seeking a review of the impugned order, which is beyond the scope of the M.P. The issue in the case on hand is whether the assessee has made out any case of mistake apparent from the records, to warrant interference under Section 254(2) of the Act. For the reasons discussed above, we are very clear that the assessee has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Excessive interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of judicial pronouncements in the case of Prannoy Roy and Bharatbhai B Shah.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Excessive Interest Charged under Section 234A and 234B:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 2,84,79,211, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3), determining the income at Rs. 2,95,35,710. The assessee subsequently filed a rectification application regarding the quantum of interest charged under Section 234A, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer under Section 154. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the assessee approaching the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the only issue in the appeal was the interest chargeable under Section 234A. The assessee contended that the interest charged was excessive and relied on decisions by the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had already considered these issues and judicial pronouncements, rendering a specific finding that upheld the Assessing Officer's calculation.

2. Applicability of Judicial Pronouncements:
The assessee argued that the interest should be calculated after reducing the amount of tax paid before the due date of filing the return, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT V Prannoy Roy and the Gujarat High Court decision in Bharatbhai B Shah. The Tribunal found that these judicial decisions were not applicable to the assessee's case because the facts were different. Specifically, the assessee had paid taxes and filed the return belatedly, unlike in the cited cases where taxes were paid before the due date.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) order, which had distinguished these judicial decisions and found the Assessing Officer's calculation correct. The Tribunal emphasized that interest under Section 234A and 234B is compensatory and not penal, aimed at compensating the revenue loss to the exchequer due to delayed payment of taxes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record that warranted rectification under Section 254(2). The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee, affirming the CIT (Appeals) decision and the Assessing Officer's calculation of interest.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 24th Sept., 2015, dismissing the assessee's Miscellaneous Petition for Assessment Year 2009-10.