CCPA Fines Chaayos Rs.50,000 for Default Inclusion of Service Charge in Bills  ||  MP HC: Major Unmarried Daughter Need Not Prove Disability to Claim Maintenance if Unable to Earn  ||  Madras HC: Travel Costs Must be Reimbursed to Independent Special Public Prosecutors  ||  MP HC: Timely Coordination Between Police, Banks and Telecom Bodies is Crucial in Cyber Fraud  ||  Kerala HC: Foreign Counsel Cannot Conduct Cross-Examination Before Commissioners  ||  Allahabad HC: Proclaimed Offenders Get Anticipatory Bail Only in Rare and Exceptional Cases  ||  Madras HC: Repeated Intimacy Alone Doesn't Prove Consent; Coercion & Deception Must be Examined  ||  SC: Government Can Revise Royalty under the MMDR Act Despite a Silent Lease Deed  ||  SC: Recovery of a Weapon Alone is Insufficient to Prove Guilt Without Conscious Possession  ||  SC: Section 68 of Evidence Act Does Not Require Attesting Witnesses to Prove Registered Sale Deeds    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved