TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer to grant interest u/s 244A of the I T Act on payment of self-assessment tax of ₹ 15,50,00,000/- from the date of payment. 3.1 Ground No.8 relates to the issue whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest on interest u/s 244A of the Act by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia v CIT (280 ITR 643). 4. Brief facts relevant to ground no.2 to 7 are as follows:- The assessee is a nationalized bank in which majority of shares are held by the Central Government. For the concerned year, it filed return of income on 24.10.2002 declaring book profits u/s 115JB amounting to ₹ 105,47,01,155/-. 4.1 The Assessing Officer completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted interest on self-assessment tax paid from the date of regular assessment, as against the claim of assessee that the interest ought to have been calculated from the date on which self-assessment tax is paid. 4.6 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer in restricting the grant of interest from the date of regular assessment as against from the date of payment of self-assessment tax, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 4.7 The CIT(A), after hearing the contentions of the assessee bank, allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding thus:- In the appellate order dated 29.8.2007 in the appellant's case itself, my predecessor had quoted paragraphs 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 and the relevant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that the Board's Circular is binding on the department. It was further argued by the learned AR that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Sutlej Industries Ltd. 325 ITR 331, which in turn, has followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. 294 ITR 438. The learned AR also distinguished the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of CIT v MICO. It was submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case cited supra (para 4 of judgement) had rejected the Standing Council's contention that the assessee was not entitled to claim interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 244A(1)(b), i.e. from the date of payment of such amount up to the date on which refund is actually granted. We find support for this conclusion from the decision of the Madras High Court in Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 438, the special leave petition against which order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Even otherwise, it is trite law that wherever the assessee is entitled to refund, there is statutory liability on the Revenue to pay the interest on such refund on general principles to pay the interest on sums wrongfully retained (Sandvik Asias Ltd. supra) . 4.13 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had followed the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) wherein it was clearly held that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a v CIT 280 ITR 643 that the assessee is entitled on interest from the date on which the interest ought to be granted up to the date, the interest is paid. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- Interest is payable on the amount to be refunded u/s 244(1) within three months from the decision of the appellate or other authority specified in section 240. The expression 'amount' in the earlier part of section 24(1) refers not only to the tax but also to the interest, it is a neutral expression and it cannot be limited to the tax paid in pursuance of the order of assessment. Even assuming that there is no provision for payment of compensation, compensation for delay is required to be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
