TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 3398/Del/2011 read as under:- i) That the order dated 22.3.2011 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act by the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi is bad in law and wrong on facts. ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee for allowing interest on the amount unlawfully withheld by the Department, till the date of refund of such amount. iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that due to unlawfully withholding of the due amount to the assessee, the assessee was deprived of util ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund of ` 10,38,32,977/- has been fully adjusted against the demand for A.Y. 1996-97, vide voucher dated 19.3.1999. Assessee filed an application u/s 154 dated 18.7.2001, seeking grant of interest u/s. 244A for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1999, that is, upto the month in which the refund was adjusted. However, the application u/s. 154 has been rejected, on account of being barred by limitation. It was held that no order u/s. 154 could be passed after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. 6. Upon assessee s appeal in this regard Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that he agreed with the assessee that interest u/s 244A should have been granted by the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No. 12855 of 1994. - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. C.I.T. Ors. 280 ITR 643. - Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Goodyear India Ltd. 249 ITR 527. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. 10. We find that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. C.I.T. Ors. 280 ITR 643 had held that assessee was entitled to compensation by way of interest under section 214 and section 244 for the delay in payment interest u/s 214 and 244 lawfully due to the assessee which were withheld wrongly and contrary to law by the department for inordinate long period. In our considered opinion, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
