9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 500 - AT - Income TaxInterest for defaults in furnishing return of income - whether the taxes paid under section 140A by the assessee are to be reduced from the assessed tax for the purpose of computing interest under section 234A? - Held that - As in the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (2001 (12) TMI 68 - DELHI High Court) it is clearly held that interest would be payable in a case where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income tax return. Further, Hon ble Supreme Court also in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (2008 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT ) clearly held that when the tax due had already been paid, which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest does not arise. Thus, both the Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court has held that credit of only self-assessment tax paid before the due date of filing of return has to be allowed while computing interest under section 234A of the Act. Interest under section 234A of the Act would be payable by the assessee, on the assessed tax of ₹ 1,57,58,192 /- reduced by the self-assessment tax of ₹ 95,00,000/- paid before the due date of filing of return, for the period from 01/10/2010 to 25/03/2011. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is allowed partly.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of interest under Section 234A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. 3. Direction to the Assessing Officer for recalculating interest under Section 234B. 4. Basis of the CIT(A) order and its adherence to judicial precedents. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Levy of Interest under Section 234A The appellant contested the levy of interest under Section 234A, arguing that the interest should be compensatory and not penal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Pranoy Roy. The appellant had paid ?95,00,000 before the due date of filing the return and the balance later, but the Assessing Officer levied interest on the entire assessed tax without considering the payments made. The Tribunal noted that the dispute centered on whether taxes paid under Section 140A should be reduced from the assessed tax for computing interest under Section 234A. The Tribunal referenced multiple judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's affirmation in Pranoy Roy, which held that interest under Section 234A should be computed after reducing the self-assessment tax paid before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give credit for the self-assessment tax paid before the due date while computing the interest under Section 234A, partially allowing the appeal. Issue 2: Levy of Interest under Section 234B The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not categorically direct the Assessing Officer to calculate interest under Section 234B after giving due credit for taxes paid during the period April 2010 to March 2011. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest as per law after considering the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal deemed the CIT(A)'s direction appropriate and found no need for further directions, thus dismissing this ground of appeal. Issue 3: Direction to the Assessing Officer The appellant sought a specific direction for the Assessing Officer to recalculate interest under Section 234B considering the taxes paid. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s general direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the appellant's submissions and recalculate the interest as per law, finding it sufficient for ensuring due consideration of the appellant's payments. Consequently, no additional direction was issued by the Tribunal. Issue 4: Basis of the CIT(A) Order The appellant contended that the CIT(A) order was not based on correct facts and judicial precedents. The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Pranoy Roy and other relevant case laws. It concluded that the CIT(A) had appropriately considered the judicial precedents and facts of the case. The Tribunal's partial allowance of the appeal on the first issue and dismissal of the second issue indicated that the CIT(A)'s order was largely upheld. Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the self-assessment tax paid before the due date while computing interest under Section 234A. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the recalculation of interest under Section 234B, affirming the CIT(A)'s directions. The decision was pronounced on 16th November 2016.
|
