Case Law Details
ABB Limited Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Learned AR has given a table, wherein it is claimed that excess payment of advance tax for the 1st and the last quarter has been ignored while calculating interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act.
ITAT directs A.O. to examine the correctness of the claim of the assessee as regards the calculation of interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act and grant relief in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 31.01.2012. The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007.
2. Two grounds are raised in the memorandum of appeal. The assessee has also filed two additional grounds. During the course of hearing, the learned AR did not press both the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and the first ground in the additional ground. The surviving ground, namely, ground 2 in the additional grounds of appeal reads as follow:-
“2. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal filed before your Honours dated March 28, 2012, the Assessing Officer has erred in calculating interest u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
3. The above ground is regarding calculation of interest u/s 234C of the I.T.Act. The adjudication of the same does not require examination of new facts, hence, ground 2 is admitted and we proceeded to dispose of the same on merits. The learned AR submitted that for the 1st quarter, namely, 06.2005, interest at the rate of 1% for three months is computed by the A.O. without considering the fact that the assessee has paid 12% of the tax payable. For the first quarter, i.e., 15.06.2005 thereby complying with provisions of section 234C (refer provisions to section 234C(1)(a) of the I.T. Act). Therefore, it was prayed that the matter may be remanded to the A.O. to recalculate interest levied u/s 234C of the I.T. Act.
4. The learned Departmental Representative was duly
5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned AR has given a table, wherein it is claimed that excess payment of advance tax for the 1st and the last quarter has been ignored while calculating interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act. The table submitted by the learned AR is reproduced below :-
Total advance tax required to be paid 1,114,661.211 (tax on returned income less TDS
| 15/12% | 45/36% | 75/75% | 100/100% | ||
| Interest u/s 234C |
By 15th June, 05 |
By 15th Sept. 05 |
By 15th Dec. 05 | By 15th March 06 | |
| Amount of advance tax required to be paid as per returned income |
167,199,182 | 501,597,645 | 835,995,908 | 1,114,661,211 | |
| Minimum amount of advance tax required to be paid as per returned income. |
133,759,345 | 401,278,036 | 635,995,908 | 1,114,661,211 | |
| Amount of advance tax paid |
135,000,000 | 391,000,000 | 759,000,000 | 1,119,000,000 | |
| Shortfall | (1,240,655) | 110,597,545 | 76,995,908 | (4,338,789) | |
| Interest @ 1% PM for 3 months | (37,220) | 3,317,926 | 2,309,877 | (43,3880) | 56,27,804 |
(figures in bracket being negative is ignored)
5.1 The A.O. is directed to examine the correctness of the claim of the assessee as regards the calculation of interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act and grant relief in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground 2 in additional ground is restored to the A.O.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 08th day of March, 2022.
“5.1 The A.O. is directed to examine the correctness of the claim of the assessee as regards the calculation of interest u/s 234C of the I.T.Act and grant relief in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground 2 in additional ground is restored to the A.O.”
As stated, -“The relevant assessment year is 2006-2007.’
It stands to be inferred from thetext of the itat order, presumably . the assessment has been completed manually; not processed though the CPC.
Be that as it may, am personally aware of an instance in which, even while e’filing a tax return for AY 2021-22,the filer has substantially over paid advance tax and as per the computation in the return a refund is due(together with interest); nonetheless, the system calculates and shows interest u/s 234C as due. Does that not mean that the system itself is faulty; if so, requires to be revamped ?!?
courtesy