Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1078 - ITAT HYDERABADInterest levied u/s 234A, B and C - order passed charging interest u/s 220(2) - HELD THAT:- We find that the interest u/s 220(2) which has been charged in the initial consequential order passed by the AO has been waived by the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad. Subsequently, pursuant to directions of ITAT to treat the advance amount paid by assessee, as advance tax for the A.Y. 1995-96, the AO has passed the consequential order. We find that in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. [1988 (2) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] was considering the case of an assessee wherein while giving effect to the order of the ACIT in the quantum appeal, the interest on refund was not allowed u/s 244. The Hon’ble High Court held that the order passed by the ITO giving effect to the decision of appellate authority is as much an assessment order as the one passed by him by way of regular assessment u/s 143 of the Act. As held that in the absence of specific right of appeal conferred by S.246, no appeal lies to the appellate authority against refusal to grant interest, but where there is total denial of liability to pay interest, the order is liable to be challenged in an appeal although there can be no appeal if dispute is only regarding the quantum of interest payable. There is a distinction between the principle of law, i.e. where there is total denial of assessee’s claim, it is open to him to show that the claim for interest was well founded. The Tribunal granted certain reliefs to the assessee and in giving effect to the Tribunal’s order, the Income tax Officer passed a modification order granting refund to the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the modification order and claimed that the Income tax Officer was in error in not granting interest on refund under section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Commissioner (Appeals) held that no appeal lay against an order giving effect to the appellate order of the Tribunal and that, in any event, no right of appeal was provided against the Income tax Officer’s omission to grant refund u/s 244. The Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). On a reference: Held - (i) that the assessee had a right of appeal against the modification order as if it were an assessment order itself and the appellate authority was bound to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits. (ii) That since there was total denial of liability on the part of the Revenue to pay interest on the refund, an appeal lay to the next appellate authority.
|