DCIT- CC- 4(1), MUMBAI vs. JYOTI H. MEHTA, MUMBAI

The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) erred in law in restricting the meaning of regular assessment without appreciating the fact that assessment order dated 28.03.2016 was passed u/s 143(3) rws 254 of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is part of Late. Harshad Mehta Group and is a notified person under the Special Court Act, 1992. In this case, the set aside assessment was completed u/s 254 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, 1961 on 22.03.2016 and assessed total income at Rs.255,50,97,320/- and the tax payable at Rs.224,05,90,899/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, 1961, against the assessment order and objected for charging interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 from the due date as mentioned in the demand notice accompanying the original assessment order passed by the AO. The AO did not agree with the contentions of the assessee and reject the rectification application and re-computed interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act 1961. While adjudicating rectification application, the Ld. AO noted that on one hand the assessee states that interest u/s 220(2) is to be charged from the due date, as per fresh assessment order passed by the AO, on the other hand, argued that interest u/s 234A and 234B is to be charged till the date of the original assessment order, which is contradictory, as well as arbitratory. Therefore, he computed interest u/s 234A and 234B up to the date of fresh assessment order passed by the AO u/s 254 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and also charged interest u/s 220(2) from the due date as per the fresh assessment order.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated her arguments made before the AO in light of certain judicial precedents and argued that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own group cases. The Ld.CIT(A) for the detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order, allowed relief to the assessee and directed the AO to compute interest u/s 2334A and 234B up to the date of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and also charged interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 from the due date as per fresh assessment order passed u/s 254 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the Ld.CIT(A) order, revenue is in appeal before us.

The only issue that came up for our consideration from ground No. 1 and 2 of revenue appeal is charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. AR for the assesee, at the time of hearing submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assesee by the decision of ITAT, in assessee’s own case for AY 1992-93 in and 4310/Mum/2017, where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal by following the decision of Late Harshad Mehta in ITA No. 5702 and 6028/Mum/2017 directed the AO to charge interest u/s 234A and 234B up to the date of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the I.T.Act, 1961.

We have heard both parties and perused materials available on record along with case laws cited by the ld. AR for the assessee. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assesee by the decision of ITAT, in assessee own case for AY 1992-93 in and 4310/Mum/2017, where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal by following the decision of Late Harshad Mehta in ITA No. 5702 and 6028/Mum/2017 directed the AO to charge interest u/s 234A and 234B up to the date of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the I.T.Act, 1961. We, further noted that the Tribunal, in the case of Late Harshad S Mehta has considered the issue, in light of provisions of section 234A and 234B and 234C of the I.T.Act, 1961 and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mody industries Limited vs CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 (SC), had came to the conclusion that interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B shall be computed up to the date of regular assessment and further, held that regular assessment means, the assessment made u/s 143(3) or section 144 of the I.T.Act 1961. Similarly, insofar as charging interest u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs Chika Overseas Ltd. (2012) 314 ITR 529 held that interest chargeable u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961, shall be computed from the due date of fresh assessment order passed u/s 254 r.w.s. 143(3), but not from the due date of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) or 144 of the I.T.Act, 1961. In this case, facts are identical to the facts considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y 1992-93. Further, the revenue has failed to bring on record any contrary decisions before us to deviate from the decision taken by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for earlier years.

In this view of the matter and consistent with view taken by co- ordinate bench in assessee own case for AY 1992-93, we are of the considered view that there is no error in findings of the Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the additions made by the AO towards computation of interest u/s 234 A and 234B and u/s 220(2) of the I.T.Act 1961 and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.