DUGLI DEVI,MANALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KULLU, MANALI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the correctness of the demand, including the computation of interest, required verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification and re-computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2020-21, where the Assessing Officer (AO) framed an assessment under section 147. The AO accepted the returned income but raised a demand of Rs. 4,50,705/-, primarily related to interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
What were the issues?
The key issue was the correctness of the interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and whether it was wrongly calculated by the AO despite no additions to the returned income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 139(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, J.M:
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020- 21 is directed against an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 13.01.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] under
2 535/Chd/2026
section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 05.02.2025.
The assessment was completed by accepting the returned income of Rs.14,99,220/-. The grievance of the assessee is mainly with regard to the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
Before us, the assessee submitted that the original return of income under section 139(1) was filed on 10.01.2021 and the revised return was filed on 12.01.2021. It was contended that there was no delay in filing the return and, therefore, interest under section 234A was not leviable. It was further submitted that the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C has been wrongly calculated by the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the submissions of the assessee and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the assessment order does not make any addition to the returned income of Rs.14,99,220/-. However, as pointed out by the assessee,
3 535/Chd/2026
a demand of Rs.4,50,705/- has been raised. The correctness of such demand, including the computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C, requires verification at the level of the Assessing Officer.
In the interest of justice, the issue is, therefore, restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verification and re-computation of interest, if any, leviable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall verify the dates of filing of the original and revised returns, the returned income, taxes paid by the assessee and the applicable provisions while computing the interest. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter provide a fresh tax computation sheet to the assessee.
If, on such verification, it is found that the interest has been wrongly charged or the demand has been incorrectly raised, the Assessing Officer shall rectify the same and ensure that the correct demand is reflected on the Income-tax portal after providing the assessee with the revised tax computation.
4 535/Chd/2026
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.09.2026.
-Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER rkk आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयआिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File
सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,KhurdaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Saroj Kumar Mahanandia vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026