EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY WELFARE SCHEME NSPL,RAIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , RAIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 506/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 June 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the interest income was disclosed, TDS was deducted and deposited, and a return was filed in response to Section 148 notice, there was no justification for imposing the fee under Section 234F. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the addition was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee disclosed interest income of Rs. 9,56,082/- in its return filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that TDS was deducted on this income and the assessee had disclosed it. However, the AO imposed a fee under Section 234F for not filing the return under Section 139(1).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a fee under Section 234F was leviable when the income was disclosed and taxes were paid through TDS, despite the return not being filed voluntarily under Section 139(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 234F,Section 139(1),Section 194A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 23.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 13.03.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

That when the matter was called up for hearing none appeared for the assessee. The submissions of Ld. Sr. DR are recorded and the materials/documents carefully considered, case heard on merits.

3.

The relevant facts as emanating from the assessment order are as follows: “3.4 Reasons for inference drawn that no variation is required on this issue: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has provided copy of interest certificate issued by State Bank of India in respect of interest income other than interest on securities (Sec 194A) amounting to Rs. 9,56,082/-, copy of its computation of income for the year under consideration, copy of bank statements of State Bank of India having account nos. 00000034301072904, 00000036024757977 and 00000030308957106, Form No. 26AS and copy of its return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. (i) In respect of query raised by this office during the course of assessment proceedings to verify the interest income earned by the assessee u/s 194A, the assessee has submitted copy of interest certificate issued by State Bank of India for the year under consideration in its reply dated 11.10.2024 in "Annexure-1" in response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.09.2024, copy of the same is pasted as below:-”

3 Employees Contributory Welfare Scheme Nspl Vs. AO ITA No.506/RPR/2026

4 Employees Contributory Welfare Scheme Nspl Vs. AO ITA No.506/RPR/2026

On perusal of the abovementioned copy of interest certificate issued by State Bank of India, it is noticed that the assessee has received interest income of Rs.9,56,070/-from State Bank of India during the FY 2019-20 relevant to AY 2020-21. Further, on perusal of Form No. 26AS, it is also noticed that the assessee has received interest Income amounting to Rs. 9,56,082/- for which corresponding TDS of Rs. 95,638/- has already been deducted and duly deposited by the State Bank of India u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, it is also verified that the assessee has also duly disclosed its interest income of Rs. 9,56,082/- in its return of income filed on 04.04.2024 in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2024. Further, on verification of the record available on portal, it is noticed that the tax liability on the part of the assessee during the year under consideration has already

5 Employees Contributory Welfare Scheme Nspl Vs. AO ITA No.506/RPR/2026

been discharged by paying the tax due (TDS) to the assessee before issuing of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2024. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reply of the assessee is considered and it is found tenable and there is no adverse inference has been drawn on this issue. 4. (i) On thorough examination of the documents and information provided by the assessee on various dates, there is no basis for making any addition to the reported income of the assessee as declared in its return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee on 07.03.2024. The assessee has provided satisfactory explanations and documentation concerning interest income received for the concerned year, hence, no adverse inference is drawn on this issue. (ii)However, had the case of the assessee not been reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee would not have disclosed its income by filing its return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 07.03.2024. As the assessee had taxable income as discussed above at Para No. 3.4 (i) for the A.Y. 2020-21, but it had not filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus fee prescribed u/s 234F for non-filing of return of income is applicable to be charged in this case.” The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had confirmed the addition.

4.

The point to be noted is as observed by the A.O. himself at Page 9 of his order that from the perusal of Form 26AS the assessee had received interest income amounting to Rs. 9,56,082/- for which the corresponding TDS of Rs. 95,638/- has already been deducted and duly deposited by the State Bank of India under Section 194A of the Act. Further, the A.O. writes that as per his verification the assessee has also duly recorded the interest income of Rs. 9,56,082/- in its return of income as per response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 07.03.2024. Therefore, the Department acknowledges the fact that for the entire interest income earned by the assessee the TDS has been deducted, that return of income

6 Employees Contributory Welfare Scheme Nspl Vs. AO ITA No.506/RPR/2026

was also filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. There is no grievances for the Revenue that legitimate taxes were not paid. That the Ld. Sr. DR could not refute these facts on record nor could submit any evidence that whether any taxes were due to the Department by the assessee. That as per record the only parameter for imposing section 234F of the Act by the A.O. was that the assessee had not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. It is an addition that has been done by the A.O. in a routine manner without specifying what prejudice has been caused to the Department when the return of income had been filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. It is not the case that no return has been filed by the assessee. It is also not the case that TDS deducted has not been deposited in the Government account, therefore, as evident from the findings of the Revenue Authorities no justification emanates for imposing fee under section 234F in the case of the assessee. The order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside.

5.

As per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of June, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 23rd June, 2026. Tanmay, Sr. PS

7 Employees Contributory Welfare Scheme Nspl Vs. AO ITA No.506/RPR/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →