CHANDRA SEKHAR PENDURTHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 560/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 234A on the premise that no return was filed, which was contradicted by the record. The assessee claimed adjustment of seized cash against tax liability, which also needed verification.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) concerning Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's primary grievance is regarding the levy and calculation of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the interest levied under Section 234A and 234B is correctly calculated, considering the filing of the return and the adjustment of seized cash against tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 26AS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 07/05/2025

Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12/03/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. The only grievance of the assessee is regarding the levy of interest u/s 234A and wrong calculation of interest u/s 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied the interest u/s 234A of the Act on the premises that the assessee has not filed the return of income, however, the assessee has duly filed the return of income which is also certified by the Assessing Officer itself placed at page Nos. 11 to 31 of the paper book. He has also referred to the acknowledgement of the return filed placed at page 73 of the paper book and submitted that in the return of income, the assessee has also claimed the adjustment of self-assessment

Page 2 of 5 tax against the cash of Rs.23,55,000/-seized during the search & seizure operation. He has also referred to the computation of income annexed to the return of income and submitted that the assessee has duly claimed the adjustment of the seized cash against the tax liability. However, the Assessing Officer has not considered even the return of income filed by the assessee as well as the cash seized during the search & seizure operation, duly claimed and requested by the assessee to be adjusted against the tax liability. The learned AR has further submitted that while giving effect to the order of the learned CIT (A), the Assessing Officer has not calculated the tax u/s 234B of the Act as per the outcome of the order of the learned CIT (A) and therefore, there is a mistake in calculation of the interest u/s 234B of the Act. He has referred the giving effect order placed at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not calculated the right amount of tax u/s 234B while giving effect to the order of the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the return of income filed by the assessee, advance tax as reflected in Form 26AS as well as the cash seized during the search & seizure operation to be adjusted against the tax liability and then calculate the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that all these claims of the assessee were not reflected from the orders of the authorities below. He has objected to the appeal of the Page 3 of 5 assessee for giving the benefit of the cash seized during the search & seizure operation in the absence of any request made by the assessee.

5.

We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer has calculated the interest u/s 234A of the Act on the premises that no return of income was filed by the assessee and therefore, the tax paid, if any, on the self-assessment has not been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. From the record, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income for the year under consideration which is also duly certified by the assessee. Further, in the return of income, the assessee has claimed the adjustment of cash seized during the search & seizure operation of Rs.23,55,000/- against the tax liability. Therefore, all these facts are required to be verified and if found correct, then the claim of the assessee is required to be considered while computing the interest u/s 234A of the Act. The assessee has also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not calculated the correct amount of the interest u/s 234B while passing the giving effect to the order of the learned CIT (A). This aspect is also required to be verified at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this matter to the record of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the claim of the assessee regarding the correct amount of interest u/s 234A as well as u/s 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961 to be verified and Page 4 of 5 examined as per the facts of the case after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →