TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging the assessee to have caused delay in refund on account of non-furnishing of proof of tax payment nowhere forms part of adjudication in the lower appellate order. It is evident that the Assessing Officer’s relevant findings are only in the context of section 244A interest on TDS payment of ₹ 15,401/- nowhere germane to the issues raised in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly rejected. - Decided against revenue Interest on interest - Held that:- As decided in CIT, Gujarat vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest. We follow the hon’ble a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.89. 2.2 The CIT(A) has erred in not considering the legal position that the interest on refund after 01.04.89 is allowable u/s.244A and there is no provision for considering the interest due on refund as tax paid for the purposes of allowing interest u/.s.244A. 2.3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while directing the A.O. to grant interest on interest without considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest as a compensation under writ jurisdiction and the CIT(A) has no such powers. 2.4 The CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of GSFC ltd. for A.Y. 1995-96 in ITA Nos.2348 and 2349/Ahd/2004 dated 31.07.2006 wherein after considering the decision of Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 989 as per challan forming part of the case file. The assessee filed a rectification dated 16-04-2003 before the Assessing Officer qua giving effect order dated 24-01-2003 and claimed interest u/s. 244A from date of payment till receipt refund order dated 04-03-2005 received on 05-04- 2003. The assessing authority passed its order on 10-09-2004 holding that section 244A is not allowable on the impugned self assessment tax. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) restored this issue back on 17-01-2006 to be decided afresh as per case law of Modi Industries Ltd vs. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 759 and that of the Mumbai bench of tribunal in Jethiben K. Patel Discretionary Trust ITA 4364/Mum/2000 holding the issue in assessee s favour. 6. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial leave petition against the former judgment stands dismissed in the hon ble apex court. On other hand, hon ble Delhi high court in CIT vs. Engineers India Ltd ITA No. 300 of 2012 decided on 26-02-2015 considers that above said judgment and takes a contrary view in Revenue s favour on the very issue. The parties inform us that the hon ble jurisdictional high court has not decided this question. We are of the opinion that the view favouring the assessee holding self assessment tax to be entitled for section 244A interest has to be adopted in this backdrop of conflicting judicial precedents. We order accordingly and uphold the CIT(A) s order. The Revenue s first substantive ground is rejected. 9. Now we come to Revenue s second argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and determination by this Court was, whether the assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Revenue for delay in payment of the amount admittedly due to the assessee. This Court has noticed inter alia the provisions of Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act1) and in light of the same has doubted the correctness of the decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 's case (supra). 3. In order to answer the aforesaid issue before us, we have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 's case (supra} and the order of reference. We have also considered the submissions made by the parties to the lis. 4. We would first throw light on the reasoning and the decision of this Court on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also by the Revenue. They are of the view that in Sandvik Asia Ltd.'s case (supra), this Court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment. In other words, the interpretation placed is that the Revenue is obliged to pay an interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period. 7. As we have already noticed, in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 's case (supra) this Court was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the great prejudice caused to it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court had come t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
