SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 25295

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
SAMSARA SHIPPING PVT LTD MUMBAI – Appellant
Versus
DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1) MUMBAI – Respondent
ITA 6724/MUM/2025[2021-22]



##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 6724/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year: 2021-22)

Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer

101/102, Technopolis Knowledge Room No. 607, 6th Floor,

Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road,

Chakala MIDC S.O., Mumbai

Mumbai-400 093

PAN/GIR No. AAACS 9285 Q

(Appellant) : (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Bhalla &

Shri Sagar Joshi

Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

This is an appeal by the assessee, against the order dated 27.08.2025 of

Addl./JCIT(A), Panchkula, pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2021-22.

2. The sole grievance of the assessee in the appeal is concerning levy of interest u/s.

220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Of course, vide letter dated

17.12.2025 the assessee has sought to raise an additional ground, challenging the validity

of the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act on account of non-mentioning of document

identification number (DIN). Be that as it may, we propose to deal the issue on merits.

3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the assessment year

under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 14.03.2022, declaring total income

of Rs.55,22,22,410/-. Though initially, the return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of

##PAGE2##

2

ITA No. 6724/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22)

Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

the Act, however, subsequently, it was selected for scrutiny. In course of assessment

proceeding, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) called for various details and after

examining them ultimately, concluded the assessment vide order dated 22.12.2022 u/s.

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.204,90,47,769/-, after

adding an amount of Rs.149,68,25,359/-. After completing the assessment as aforesaid, the

A.O. issued the assessment order along with the demand notice dated 22.12.2022, in terms

of section 156 of the Act, mentioning “zero” document. Thereafter, the A.O., based on

objection raised by the Revenue audit party, having found that while computing the tax

liability, total income was mistakenly taken at Rs.55,22,22,410/-, resulting in short levy of

tax to the tune of Rs.116,75,23,779/- passed a rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act. In the

income tax computation sheet attached to the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act, the A.O.

computed interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act for an amount of Rs.32,54,36,620/-.

4. Being aggrieved with levy of such interest, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ld. first appellate authority.

5. It was the say of the assessee before the first appellate authority that since there was

no failure on the part of the assessee, in terms of section 220(1) of the Act, there cannot be

any levy of interest u/s. 220(1) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that interest

cannot be levied u/s. 220(2) of the Act for a period prior to the order passed levying such

interest. The submissions made by the assessee, however, did not find favour with the first

appellate authority. He observed, interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act is consequential and

automatic. He observed, since in the original notice of demand issued u/s. 156 of the Act

nil demand was shown as a result of computational error, the demand crystalized after the

rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Act would have retrospective effect from the date

##PAGE3##

3

ITA No. 6724/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22)

Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

of the original assessment order. Accordingly, he upheld the levy of interest u/s. 220(2) of

the Act.

6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before us. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel

appearing for the assessee primarily reiterated the submission made before the first

appellate authority. Further, he relied upon the following decisions:

1. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. vs. Union of India [2013] 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top