9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efines the expression due date . Hence, the department in the hands of the firm i.e. M3M holding had accepted the fact that it is liable for tax audit and accordingly had accepted the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act to be 31.10.2013. Hence, the department cannot take the divergent stand for the assessee herein by holding that the firm in which assessee is a partner is not liable for tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act and consequently, the due date for assessee would get advanced to 05.08.2013, instead of 31.10.2013. In view of this, we have no hesitation to direct the AO to delete the chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act in the sum in the instant case. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 The finding that appellant was the partner of the firm whose accounts were not liable to be audited u/s 44AB of the Act is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable. 1.3 That also the conclusion that AO has charged interest u/s 234A,B,C of the Act while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration in the case of the appellant is not in accordance with law, contrary to facts on record and thus misconceived 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts, and in law in upholding the determination of levy of interest of Rs. 22,35,232/- u/s 234A of the Act, Rs. 67,22,139/- u/s 234B of the Act and Rs. 51,18,325/- u/s 234C of the Act aggregating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. This return was processed by the ld CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.04.2014 accepting the return of income but interest u/s 234A of the Act in the sum of ₹22,35,232/- was charged together with few modifications in calculation of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. According to ld. CPC, due date of assessee for filing return of income u/s 139(1) would be 05.08.2013 being the extended due date u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2013-14 and not 31.10.2013. Accordingly, interest u/s 234A was levied. It is a fact that the partnership firm M3M India holdings was indeed subjected to tax audit for AY 2013 14. Further, the return filed by the said partnership firm for AY 2013-14 was duly processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.04.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
