2013 (10) TMI 1132 - AT - Income Tax

Interest Charges Disputed in Tax Appeal; Relief Granted on Interest Expenditure

Deepika A. Mehta Versus DCIT CEN CIR 2, Mumbai

The Appeals Officer charged interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06. The First Appellate Authority directed the AO to ... Levy of Interest for failure to pay advance tax - Interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act – Held that:- Assessee was a notified entity under the provisions of Special Court Act,that no interest u/s.234A,234B &234C of the Act could be charged in her case,that her bank account were operat -ed under the directions of the Special Court,that the provisions of Special Court had overriding effect over the Act,that all the assets were under the control of the custodian,that the appellant could not have paid the advance tax unless directed by the Special Court,that the assessee did not have control over its income/assets,that she could not be penalised for non-payment of advance tax – Assessee did not have control over the her funds/assets,that she could not be held as defaulter for failure in payment of advance tax – Penalty levied is deleted. Issues:1. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05 and 2005-06.2. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act.3. Assessment of income from attached assets.4. Relief of liability towards interest expenditure.5. Taxation of income in the hands of the appellant.Issue 1: Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C- The Assessing Officer (AO) charged interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06.- The assessee contended that being a notified entity under the Special Court Act, no interest could be charged under these sections.- The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the AO to delete the interest levied under section 234 of the Act based on the lack of control over funds/assets by the assessee.- The issue was remanded back to the FAA for re-adjudication, following similar cases involving the Harshad Mehta group.- The appeals filed by the AO were allowed in part, remitting the issue back to the FAA for further consideration.Issue 2: Validity of Assessment Order under Section 143(3)- The assessee raised concerns about the validity of the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act.- The FAA dismissed grounds 1-3 as they were not pressed during the hearing.Issue 3: Assessment of Income from Attached Assets- The assessee sought relief of liability towards interest expenditure.- The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Pratima Mehta and set aside the issue of disallowance of interest for fresh adjudication by the AO.- The issue of disallowance of interest was restored to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 in part.Issue 4: Relief of Liability towards Interest Expenditure- The assessee's appeal for relief of liability towards interest expenditure was allowed in part, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.Issue 5: Taxation of Income in the Hands of the Appellant- The issue of taxation of income in the hands of the appellant was addressed based on the Special Court Act, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the judgment involved various issues related to interest charges, assessment validity, income assessment, and relief of liability towards interest expenditure. The decisions were made based on the specific circumstances of the case, previous rulings, and legal provisions, resulting in partial allowances and remands for further consideration.