9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. The assessee s arguments stands accepted in very terms. Applicability of sec.139(9) Explanation (c) (i) still gets attracted in the instant case since the taxpayer before us namely Shri Siddhant Machindra Mhaske had nowhere claimed to have paid self-assessment tax at the time of his earlier return. We thus reject Revenue s arguments supporting both the learned lower authorities identical action raising sec.234A interest demand - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.318/PUN./2023 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2023 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only up to the date of filing the original return i.e. 08.02.2013 and not till 17.10.2018 i.e. the date of filing the return in response to notice u/s. 148. 4) The appellant requests for cancellation of the order u/s 154 passed by the A.O. as the rectification order of an invalid reasst. is bad in law, the issue involved did not constitute mistake apparent from record and also because the enhancement of interest u/s 234A was not warranted. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. We take note of the basic relevant facts regarding the assessee s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us was 01.08.2011. And that the assessee s former return dated 08.02.2013 was a defective; null and void u/s.139(9) of the Act which attracts sec.234A interest from 01.08.2011 to 19.11.2018; coming to Rs.30,46,802/- in question. It is in this manner that the Assessing Officer has rectified his above re-assessment for the purpose of levying sec.234A interest. 5.1. The NFAC has affirmed the Assessing Officer s action to this effect as follows : 6. We note in this factual backdrop that this tribunal s recent coordinate bench s order in assessee s co-owner Mrs. Sawari Sameer Shinde, Pune vs. ITO involving ITA.No.657/ PUN./2022 decided on 20.03.2023 has already rejected the Revenue s very contentions as under : 6. Mr. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee all along has not submitted even a single valid return and, therefore, sec.234A interest has been rightly charged by way of sec.154 rectification mechanism. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands. We find no merit in Revenue s arguments. We make it clear that the assessee had filed her former return u/s. 139 (4) of the Act without payment of self-assessment tax qua the admitted income of Rs.3,33,54,241/-. The Revenue could hardly dispute that sec.139(9) of the Act is a specific provision wherein an Assessing Officer could held a return as a defective one after following the due procedure as per Explanation (c) (i) thereto which treats a return filed by an assessee to be defective only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was also placed on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Hazarimal Lalooram (supra) in which it was held that where the books of account were not audited and the assessee could not attach copies of the audited balance sheet and Profit and Loss A/c with the return, it could be said that he was prevented by sufficient cause for late submission of return. 8. We have given a very careful consideration to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, but do not find any force in the same. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. D.R., clause (c) of Explanation to section 139(9) uses the expression tax, if any claimed to have been at source or in advance or on self-assessment. In other words, if the assessee claims to have paid any tax e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit Loss A/c were available. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Hazarimal Lalooram (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. We, therefore, reject the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that it was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the return in time. 8.1. We further observe that there is yet another provision in the Act i.e., sec.140A providing for consequences of non-payment of self-assessment tax as well as penalty u/s.221. And that such a default also results in non-admission of an assessee s appeal u/s.249(4) of the Act before the CIT(A) concerned. The purpose of quoting all these statutory provisions which apply in the corresponding specified facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
