9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1074 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - Issuance of intimation u/s 143(1) on charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C - audit objection raised at a later stage on the issue of non-levy of interest - Period of limitation - HELD THAT - The interest u/s 234B has not been charged while issuing the intimation u/s 143(1). The assessee has filed revised return on 26.02.2010 and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 11.05.2010. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.08.2009. The assessee has filed revised return on 26.02.2010 which has been duly taken cognizance and the assessment u/s 143(3) was passed on 11.05.2010. The interest u/s 234B and u/s 234C has not been charged while issuing the intimation and the demand raised as per the record was Nil. The date of order u/s 154 was 16.01.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Order passed u/s 153A and date of rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 254/143(3) was dated 09.12.2020 which tried to modify the order of 2009. With the filing of the revised return and issue of notice u/s 143(2), the revenue looses the right of processing the return u/s 143(1). The provision of section as amended by the subsequent Finance Act 2017 merely mentions that the processing of return shall not be necessary where a notice has been issued u/s 143(2) which was mainly brought in the Income Tax Act to stop the granting of refunds in the case of assessee's, whose return has been taken for scrutiny u/s 143(2). We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board 2002 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT held that where summary procedure u/s 143(1) has been adopted, a regular assessment can be made u/s 143(3) after issuing of notice u/s 143(2) but the converse is not correct. The provisions u/s 143(1D) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2). Hon ble Apex Court held that Section 143(1) enacts a summary procedure for quick collection of tax and quick refunds and it was meant for seeking any rectification u/s 154. Thus, we find the order of the rectification u/s 154 passed by the revenue authorities on 09.12.2020 rectifying the order of the earlier decade is barred by limitation and cannot be held to be legally valid.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the CIT(A). 2. Chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the amount of tax computed on book profits under section 115JB. 3. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Rolta India Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. 4. Limitation for passing rectification orders under section 154. 5. Jurisdictional issues related to rectification orders. 6. Merger doctrine applicability. 7. Calculation of interest under sections 234B and 234C. 8. Compliance with principles of natural justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Dated 18.08.2021 Passed by the CIT(A): The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s order dated 18.08.2021, arguing that it was bad in law and on facts. The CIT(A) had sustained the chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the book profits computed under section 115JB, which the assessee disputed. 2. Chargeability of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234C on Book Profits Under Section 115JB: The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer (AO) confirmed the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the book profits calculated for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions. The assessee argued that at the time of the impugned assessment year, the law did not require the payment of advance tax on book profits under MAT provisions, and hence, interest under sections 234B and 234C could not be charged. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment in Rolta India Ltd. and Karnataka High Court Judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd.: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the prevailing law at the time, which was based on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd., affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that the assessee was not required to pay advance tax on book profits. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rolta India Ltd., which came in 2011, holding that interest under sections 234B and 234C is chargeable even on income computed under section 115JB. 4. Limitation for Passing Rectification Orders Under Section 154: The assessee argued that the rectification order passed by the AO under section 154/254/143(3) was barred by limitation. The CIT(A) and AO had failed to appreciate that the rectification proceedings initiated were beyond the permissible time limit. 5. Jurisdictional Issues Related to Rectification Orders: The assessee contended that the AO could not rectify the order giving appeal effect to create a fresh demand under section 234C, particularly when the issue of interest was never subject matter of appeal or direction by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action of charging interest under section 234C, stating that interest chargeable under section 234C is static and can be charged at any stage of the proceedings. 6. Merger Doctrine Applicability: The assessee argued that the doctrine of merger applied, and the AO could not rectify the appeal effect order to charge interest under section 234C. The CIT(A) dismissed this argument, holding that the issue of interest under section 234C was not part of the appeal and thus could be rectified. 7. Calculation of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee disputed the calculation of interest under sections 234B and 234C made by the AO, arguing that it was grossly incorrect. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's calculation, relying on the judgment in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, which held that the charge of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory. 8. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee argued that the orders passed by the CIT(A) and AO were not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) dismissed this argument, holding that the charge of interest under sections 234B and 234C is mandatory and does not require any discretion. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the AO under section 154 was barred by limitation and could not be held to be legally valid. The tribunal also found that the interest under sections 234B and 234C could not be charged retrospectively based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rolta India Ltd., as the prevailing law at the time of the impugned assessment year was based on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Kwality Biscuits Ltd.
|
