9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for alleged non-payment of FBT liability. Furthermore, the record reveals that once the assessee came to know the fact that the demand relating to FBT liability was appearing in the portal of the Income Tax Department, it had opened a communication channel with the AO continuously seeking information regarding service of intimation and demand notice creating such liability. However, the requests of the assessee failed to evoke any response from the AO. These are admitted facts on record on record as learned first appellate authority has not disputed assessee s claim. The reason for negating assessee s claim is, the assessee was aware of the tax liability uploaded by Revenue on e-filing portal. Mere reflection of demand on e-filing portal do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue in dispute are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. As per the case set up by the department, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2017, declaring income of Rs. 176,52,75,160/-. Return of income was processed under section 143(1) of Act accepting the returned income and determining refund due of Rs. 7,59,49,760/-. However, out of the said refund due, an amount of Rs. 1,83,69,090/- was adjusted, which comprised of an amount of Rs. 91,84,590/- being outstanding Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) demand under section 115WE of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10 created on 04.01.2011 and interest under section 220(2) thereon amounting to Rs. 91,84,500/- i.e. up to the date of proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer to give credit of such payment and set off with the demand dated 04.01.2011. He further directed that since the assessee has deposited FBT demand on 16th October, 2018, the excess demand of the very same amount recovered from the assessee should be refunded. 5. Insofar as the interest component under section 220(2) is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that such interest shall be chargeable till the date of payment of demand. As regards assessee's contention that no interest is payable in terms of section 115WJ of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the issue in dispute arises out of an order passed on 04.01.2011 for assessment year 2009-10, it cannot be the subject matter of the appeal for assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y due date, there is no requirement to levy such interest. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Pranoy Roy [2009] 179 Taxman 53 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 391 (Delhi) 9. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned first appellate authority, learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee was very much aware of the FBT demand including the interest component, which was uploaded in the Income Tax Department portal. He submitted, the assessee had access to the Income Tax Department portal and was aware of the demand created against him. Thus, he submitted, there is no substance in the claim of the assessee that he had not received any intimation re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to the notice of learned first appellate authority, however, neither he has disputed assessee's claim of payment of FBT amounting to Rs. 73,45,724/- through a composite challan, nor he has given any conclusive finding regarding assessee's claim that the intimation regarding FBT liability and demand notice was never served on the assessee. Only observation of learned first appellate authority is to the effect that since the assessee had paid the FBT liability through challan dated 16th October, 2018, it was aware of the demand. Thus, it is clearly borne out from record that the assessee, indeed, has discharged its FBT liability for assessment year 2009-10 in June, 2008 itself. It is only the department which has appropriated the FBT liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice concerning FBT demand was ever served on the assessee. Though, it may be a fact that the assessee might have discharged the FBT liability appearing on the portal of the Income Tax Department in the year 2018, but that act of the assessee, by itself, cannot fasten interest liability under section 220(2) of the Act upon the assessee. 13. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the decisions cited before us, we hold that the assessee cannot be called upon to pay interest charged under section 220(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 91,84,500/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the demand and refund the amount adjusted against the refund due for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
