IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 123/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2008-09)

M/s. Exquisite Jewellery v/s. Income Tax Officer –

G-7, Gem and Jewellery बनाम

16(3)(3), Piramal Chambers, Complex II, Seepz, Andheri, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012, Mumbai-400 096, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABFE2622D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Rahul Sarda, AR Respondent by : Shri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

21.11.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)/CIT(A)-56, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 12.11.2014 as passed by the Income Tax Officer - 16(3)(3), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2008-09.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) - 56 erred in law and in facts in charging interest u/s. 234B amounting to Rs. 20,15,970/- without appreciating the fact that the Appellant was not liable to pay any advance tax on due dates for payment of advance tax.

2. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) 56 erred in law and in facts in charging interest u/s. 234B amounting to Rs. 20,15,970/- on account of deficit in advance tax because of retrospective amendment which could not be anticipated at the time of payment of advance tax.

3. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) 56 erred in rejecting the appellant's application for rectification under section 154 and also failed to follow the direction of the Hon. CIT(A) 15 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-15/Аrr.98/2014-15 vide his Order dtd 04/09/2014 directing the AO that “The request made by the appellant is genuine. Accordingly, the AO is directed to dispose of the petition of the appellant u/s. 154 pending with him expeditiously”.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) - 56 erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & Others 252 ITR 1 (SC) ignoring the fact that no default was committed by the appellant in payment of advance tax on the due dates.

3. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2008-09 on 27.09.2008 offering income at Rs.29,686/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. The TPO, vide order dated 31.10.2011 passed order u/s 92CA therein making adjustment of Rs.2,88,55,641/-. The AO, accordingly, added the same to the assessee’s income in the assessment order dated 30.12.2011. In appeal, the CIT(A)-15, Mumbai, vide order dated 15.06.2012, partly allowed the assessee’s appeal, pursuant to which, the AO vide order giving effect dated 13.08.2012, worked out the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,83,780/- and thereby charging interest u/s 234B incorrectly at Rs.20,15,970/-.Aggrieved, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO as well as an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A)-15, Mumbai, vide appellate order dated 02.09.2014 directed the AO to dispose of the assessee’s petition u/s 154. However, pursuant to the directions of the CIT(A), while disposing of the said application made by the appellant, the AO, vide order dated 12.11.2024 again added interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs.20,15,970/- and rejected the rectification application made by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee again filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) who observed that Section 234B of Act deals with the interest charged for late payment of advance tax. When taxpayers fail to pay the advance tax or pay less than 90% of the assessed tax, interest under Section 234B is attracted. The assessed tax refers to the tax liability determined by the Department base