ANURADHA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 469/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Anuradha Kumari cuke The DCIT Vs. 2, Yudhishtra Marg Circle-6 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: DIWPK 3783 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 26-05-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that rejection of rectification application u/s 154 was valid even if passed beyond 06 months contrary to the provisions of Section 154(8) of the Act. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing such rejection order.

SMT ANURADHA KUMARI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO of charging interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.9,36,499/- instead of Rs.4,33,231/- .The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the excess interest of Rs.5,03,268/- charged u/s 234A 2.1 At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee requested to argue Ground No. 2 firstly instead of Ground No. 1 which is legal in nature. Therefore, the Bench has allowed the ld. Counsel to argue Ground No. 2 firstly. It is noted in this ground of appeal that the assessee has challenged the action of revenue wherein excess interest have been levied under section 234A of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 In this regard, the Bench has heard the ld. Counsels for both the parties and also perused the material placed on record, judgement cited by the assessee as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per the facts of the case the assessee filed her return of income under Section 139(4) on 30th March 15, but paid due taxes on 30-07-2014 i.e. within the due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Since certain dates are very important to solve the controversy in question, therefore for more clarity, the Bench has elaborately explained the relevant dates through the following table. Particulars Date of filing Due date of filing of ROI u/s 139(1) 31-07-2014 Due date of filing of ROI u/s 139(4) 31-03-2015 The above dates and the facts have not be disputed by the revenue. Hence now the only question for adjudication before the Bench is whether interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act would be payable in case the total taxes have been paid by the Appellant before filing the return of income but the return is filed under the provisions of Section 139 (4) of Income Tax Act. The details of income and payment of taxes have also been explained by the appellant in the following table. Particulars Amount in Rs. Relevant Schedule in ITR Form Total income of the assessee (as per 2,53,72,100 Part-B-T1 ITR, also accepted by the AO, without any additions) Total tax payable by way of TDS (as 61,03,239 Part-B-TT1 per ITR) Tax paid by way of TDS (As per ITR) 43,530 TDS2 Tax paid by way of self assessment 60,97,300 IT tax (As per ITR) Refund Claimed by assessee in ROI 37,590 Part-B-TTI Amount of tax in question for levy of 60 97,300 Not applicable interest u/s 234A Apart from the above facts, the Bench has also gone through the CBDT Circular No. 2/2015 which clearly states that no interest u/s 234A would be charged on amount of self assessment tax paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of SMT ANURADHA KUMARI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR return of income. On going through the said circular the Bench noticed that said Circular was issued after the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Prannoy Roy 309 ITR 231 (2009) that the interest u/s 234A on default of furnishing of return of income shall be payable only on the amount of tax which has not been deposited before the due date of filing of return of income for the relevant assessment year. Since undisputedly, the appellant has duly paid taxes amounting to Rs. 60,97,300/- on 30-07-2014 which is also evident from ITR Form filled by the Appellant and the copy of which has already been placed on record. Therefore after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the CBDT Circular No. 2/2015 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Prannoy Roy (Supra) the Bench is of the considered view that the excess interest levied upon the assessee deserves to be deleted and accordingly the Bench directs the AO to delete the excess interest levied under section 234A upon the Appellant. This ground No. 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed. 2.3 Since the Bench has allowed the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee and deleted the additions made by the revenue, therefore under these circumstances Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee needs no adjudication and become academic.