Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (04 Jan 2024)

Mere reflection of demand on e-filing portal does not absolve Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice

MANU/ID/0009/2024

Direct Taxation

In present case, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. The core issue arising for consideration is relating to chargeability of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

There cannot be levy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act for alleged non-payment of FBT liability. Furthermore, the record reveals that, once the assessee came to know the fact that the demand relating to FBT liability was appearing in the portal of the Income Tax Department, it had opened a communication channel with the Assessing Officer continuously seeking information regarding service of intimation and demand notice creating such liability. However, the requests of the assessee failed to evoke any response from the Assessing Officer. These are admitted facts on record as learned first appellate authority has not disputed assessee's claim.

The reason for negating assessee's claim is, the assessee was aware of the tax liability uploaded by Revenue on e-filing portal. Mere reflection of demand on e-filing portal does not absolve Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice qua the FBT liability pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. Pertinently, in course of hearing of the present appeal, a report of the Assessing Officer was called for with regard to assessee's claim of non-service of intimation and demand notice pertaining to FBT liability. However, the Revenue has failed to furnish any material, which can establish that the intimation and demand notice concerning FBT demand was ever served on the assessee.

Though, it may be a fact that, the assessee might have discharged the FBT liability appearing on the portal of the Income Tax Department in the year 2018, but that act of the assessee, by itself, cannot fasten interest liability under Section 220(2) of the Act upon the assessee. Thus, the assessee cannot be called upon to pay interest charged under Section 220(2) of the Act amounting to Rs.91,84,500. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer directed to delete the demand and refund the amount adjusted against the refund due for the impugned assessment year. Appeal allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   INTEREST   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved