Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a French company, appealed an order concerning an assessment for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied an additional interest demand of Rs. 43,98,450/- under section 234D of the Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the calculation of interest was incorrect.
Held
The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A), who had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the interest demand under Section 234D was correctly calculated and whether the CIT(A)'s order remanding the matter was tenable.
Sections Cited
250(6), 251(1)(a), 234D, 154(3), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI
Before: SH. SUDHIR KUMAR & SH. MANISH AGARWAL
Date of hearing: 23/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Incomer Tax-(Appeal) Delhi-42 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 07.03.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 05-08-2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), and erroneously upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) raising a demand of INR 43,98,450/- is invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a non –descript and non- speaking order, without stating the decision in clear terms and hence the same is against the provisions enshrined vide section 250(6) of the Act.
3. That in the light of the statutory embargo created vide section 251(1)(a) of the Act the action of the Ld. CIT(A) of remanding the matter and directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh was not tenable.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the rectification order passed by the AO for levying additional interest of INR 43.98,450/- under section 234 D of the Act, without affording opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, was in violation to the provisions of section 154(3) of the Act and same was liable to be quashed. The CIT(A) further erred in erroneously upholding the said order passed by the AO.
5. That on a without prejudice basis the impugned demand of INR 43,98,450/- arising on account of incorrect calculation of interest under section 234 D of the Act, computed on the basis of an incorrect period (23 months as against the correct period of 8 months) and applying an incorrect rate 1% as against the prescribed rate of 0.5%), is grossly incorrect and not tenable in law.
The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of France and is a tax resident therein it, is a leading player in engineering and innovation consulting and majorly has expertise in aeronautics, naval, defence energy and nuclear, automotive and engaged in providing major manufactures with services in engineering of complex infrastructures and outsourced research and development. During the year under consideration the assessee filed its return of income on 29-12-2018. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and refund was credited in the bank account of the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and assessment was completed by Assessing Officer by calculated the interest u/s 234D of the Act on 15-12-2021. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filled the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 07-03-2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under:
“Based on the details discussion held above and submission filed by the appellant, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is directed to examine the facts of the case and reply filed by the assessee vis a vis audit objection and rectify the mistake apparent in rectification order if it is in accordance with the provision of Income Tax Act 1961. Hence all the grounds are disposed of. The Appeal is disposed of, accordingly.”
Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter was wrongly sent to the Assessing officer because the impugned demand of Rs. 43,98,450/- was made on the incorrect calculation of interest under section 234 D of the Act.
Ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the matter was remanded back to the Assessing officer to examine the facts of the case. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed
In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2025.