BHARAT JAISINGHANI ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 971/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2025AY 2020-21Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the similarity of facts to a previous case (Ajay Jaisinghani), decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

What were the facts?

The appellant was aggrieved by an intimation order under Section 143(1) levying interest under Section 234A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, stating the CPC made no adjustments and accepted the returned income. The appellant argued the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue on merits, especially concerning additional claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, or if the matter should be adjudicated on its merits, especially concerning additional claims on capital gains and interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 143(1),Section 55(2)(ac),Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: CA & Shri, CA : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Pronounced: 25/07/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above appeal, the appellant claims that interest under section 234A of the I.T. Act is not chargeable as per the 143(1) order passed by Central Processing Centre (Bangaluru) and the following grounds of appeal are taken accordingly :- Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Bharat Jaisinghani (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 53, Mumbai ['learned CIT(A)] in relation to the appeal against intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 20 March 2021 by the Centralized Pr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →