2024 (9) TMI 1099

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 30.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2011-2012, vide rectification order u/s. 154 dated 31.03.2019. The assessee has also filed a stay petition, also posted along with. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee's assessment, noticing it had failed to file any return of income u/s. 139 of the Act, was completed u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2019 at an income of Rs. 8,62,333, raising a demand of Rs. 4,55,650 u/s. 156 on 30.12.2016, including interest u/s. 234A at Rs. 10,536 (DPB 26). Subsequently, it was discovered that the said interest, which had been levied for four months, i.e., from May, 2016 (the assessee's return in response to notice u/s. 148(1) being due o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rection in it's respect was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2016, claiming, with reference to NTPC Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 7 SCC 489, that the Ground being sought to be raised being legal, with the relevant facts being not in dispute, it could be raised at any time. Reliance was placed by both the sides, inter alia, on decisions by the Apex Court on the merits of the case. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 We find no substance in the assessee's case. The Gd. as to the impugned order being time barred, raised before the ld. CIT(A), though finds mention in Gd.10 of the GoA before us, was not pressed. The same only needs to be stated to be rejected and, in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same, adverted to during hearing, it stands abundantly clarified that the matter admits of no two views; the charging of interest u/s. 234A, as indeed u/ss. 234B and 234C, mandatory and compensatory in nature, is automatic. Decisions, holding to the contrary, viz. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 210 (Pat) (FB); CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 44 (Pat), do not represent good law. That being the case, the AO has no discretion in the matter. His failure, therefore, in not issuing the direction to charge interest in the assessment order, is to no consequence, and clearly a mistake, rectifiable u/s. 154. Finally, we consider the aspect of computation of interest, on which, again, no issue was raised by the assessee. The assessment....