TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . J. Thaker,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Nitin K Mehta, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs Swati Soparkar, Adv. ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice KS Jhaveri) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short the the Tribunal ], in ITA No.3479/Ahd/2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return for the Assessment Year 1984-85 on 29.06.1984, declared total income of ₹ 5,27,547/-. After scrutiny, the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent-assessee has supported the impugned order of the Tribunal and submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in Tax Appeal No.1514 of 2006 and other allied matters. Therefore, learned advocate for the respondent urged that this Court may dismiss this appeal. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. We have also perused the decision relied on by learned advocate for the respondent-assessee and find that the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by this Court. Relevant paragraphs of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his is neither a case of annulment nor on account of failure on the part of revenue to pass assessment. In this case, refund arose on account of the assessments and further appellate proceedings. Hence, the refund should be granted, may be on account of taxes on the returned income, if the refund arose on exclusion of income from the beneficiaries case, where incomes were substantively assessed in the case of Main Trust. Mr. Bhatt referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of ITO V/s. C.H. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 S.P. Jaiswal V/s. CIT 224 ITR 619. We find that facts of these two decisions are not applicable to the present case. In the present case, issue is of protective assessments and substantive assessments. Protective assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on the date of revision order, order of High Court did exist. Following the same, we hold that CIT had no jurisdiction to pass revision order u/s.263 on 12.03.03. On that day, the order of this court dt.30.07.01 did exist. On the contrary, this order has become final. As regards grant of interest on refund, we find that Tribunal was justified in holding that refund should be granted with interest. We are in full agreement with the order of Special Bench of Tribunal. We repeat that revenue should not drag the respondents to unnecessary avoidable litigation. 7. Since the issue is already concluded by this Court, no elaborate reasons are required to be assigned by us for disposing this appeal. In that view of the matter, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
