CHIRAG ISHWARLAL KANABAR,MALIA HATINA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 905/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 April 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer passed the rectification order without considering the assessee's submissions and that the levy of interest might be erroneous. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to additional interest levied under sections 234A and 234B via a rectification order under section 154. The assessee contended that the return was filed within the allowed time and the rectification order was passed without proper application of mind and consideration of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the rectification order levying additional interest under sections 234A and 234B was passed without proper application of mind and consideration of evidence, and if the interest was correctly levied given the return filing timeline.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/01/2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोट�ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 905/RJT/2025 (�नधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: (2010-11) Chirag Ishwarlal Kanabar The DCIT, circle-2, Haveli Street, Bharwad Wadi Mala, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Hatna, Junagadh-362245 Road, Rajkot – 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANXPK7342M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Samir Jani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/01/2026 : 09/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2010-11, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.11.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s. 154 of the Act.

ITA No. 905/Rjt/2025 Chirag Ishwarlal Kanabar

2.

Ground of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows:

“1. The Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 154 levying additional interest u/s 234A and 234B is bad in law since it is without application of mind and since the return has been filed in time allowed. The order passed u/s 154 is on a debatable issue. The appellant prays for annulling the rectification order. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in levying the interest u/s 234A ignoring the statutory provisions of sub section 3 and the judicial precedents. The return filed in response to notice u/s 153C is within the time granted in the notice. The same is prayed for deletion. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B against the statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The same is prayed for deletion. 4. The appellant reserves his rights to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds at or before the time of final hearing.”

3.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer rectify the mistake u/s. 154 of the Act, without considering the relevant documents and evidences submitted by the assessee, before the assessing officer, therefore, it is against the principal of natural justice, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer to rectify the mistake in accordance with law.

4.

On the other hand, the Learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee needs to submit the relevant documents and evidences and explanation before the assessing officer, stating that it is mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, learner DR for the revenue, does not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. I note that Assessing Officer passed order u/s 154 of the Act, levying additional interest u/s 234A and 234B, which is without application of mind, as the return of income

Page 2 of 3

ITA No. 905/Rjt/2025 Chirag Ishwarlal Kanabar

has been filed in time allowed as per the Act. The Assessing Officer has also erred in levying the interest u/s 234A of the Act, ignoring the statutory provisions of sub section 3 and the judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The assessee denies its liability of interest, therefore, assessing officer should examine the issue under consideration in the light of the explanations and documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, I direct the assessing officer to rectify the mistake, if it is genuine, based on factual position and the documents and evidences, submitted by the assessee. Therefore, I direct the assessing officer to examine the mistake apparent on record and to rectify the same in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to submit the relevant documents and evidences before the assessing officer to prove his claim. For statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/04/2026.

Sd/- (Dr. Arjun Lal Saini) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 09/04/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →