TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2017-18. The principal grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Assessing Officer in subjecting the interest income on income-tax refund under section 244A amounting to Rs.18,55,93,487 to tax at the rate applicable under the domestic law, instead of the rate of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA, which rate had specifically been applied in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) dated 12.04.2021. The assessee has challenged the impugned action primarily on the ground that such subsequent alteration of the rate of tax was beyond the scope and jurisdiction of section 154. 2. Before us, the learned counsel, Shri Madhur Agarwal, drawing our attention to the relevant orders and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the return instead of the rate of 7.5% specifically stipulated in the final assessment order dated 12.04.2021. The assessee, therefore, filed an application under section 154 on 05.06.2023 pointing out, inter alia, that the income had been taxed at 43.26% instead of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA. 4. The Assessing Officer examined the said application and passed an order under section 154 dated 28.11.2023. Significantly, after noticing the assessee's specific contention that the income had been taxed at 43.26% instead of 7.5% as per the India-Mauritius DTAA, the Assessing Officer recorded that the "contention of the assessee is verified and found tenable." Thus, upon verification of the assessment record, the Assessing Officer acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that there was no discussion in the body of the original assessment order regarding applicability of the DTAA to the interest income and, therefore, the reference to the rate of 7.5% in the computation portion could not be regarded as a conscious adjudication by the Assessing Officer and represented a mistake apparent from the record. The learned CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. for the proposition that the Assessing Officer could not entertain a claim not made through the return of income. On this reasoning, the rectification order dated 19.02.2025 has been sustained. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material and the sequence of statutory orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sues which subsequently travelled in appeal and ultimately came before the Tribunal were different issues. Therefore, while passing the order giving effect to the Tribunal's decision, the Assessing Officer was required to give effect to the appellate directions while preserving those components of the original assessment which had neither been appealed against nor disturbed. The order giving effect could not provide a jurisdiction to alter an independent determination contained in the final assessment order which had already attained finality. Thus, when the order giving effect dated 30.05.2023 applied the domestic rate to the interest income contrary to the express stipulation of 7.5% in the final assessment order, the assessee pointed out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly granted the treaty benefit; whether the treatment adopted in the return precluded the Assessing Officer from applying the beneficial treaty rate; and whether the principle referred to in Goetze (India) Ltd. would have any application in such circumstances are themselves matters which would require examination and legal reasoning. Once such an exercise becomes necessary to establish the very existence of the alleged mistake, it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154. In fact, the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(A) for treating the original computation as erroneous itself demonstrates that the matter admits of an argumentative process and cannot be corrected through the narrow jurisd....