TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am ITO Vs. Volkar Bros.(1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) has held that the decision taken on a debatable point of law shall not constitute a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned rectification orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and quash the impugned rectification orders. Even on merit we notice that claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay Court rendered in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd. (Supra). It is also pertinent to note that the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd (supra) was available on the date of passing of impugned rectification orders. Accordingly, we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 990-91. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned CIT(A) in upholding the validity on rectification proceedings, the assessee has filed the appeals before us. Aggrieved by the order of learned CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of the assessee, the revenue has filed these appeals before us. 4. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee became entitled to higher refund than originally granted to it. The assessing officer, while computing the interest payable on the enhanced amount of refund, reduced the tax portion as well as interest element from the total refund due and accordingly computed interest on the remaining amount. According to the assessee, the interest element should not be deducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of total refund due. 6. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was confirmed by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of JCIT Vs. Tata Power Co. Ltd. (ITA No.6863/Mum/11 dated 06.03.2013), wherein the Tribunal had confirmed the order of learned CIT(A) in upholding that the interest element of refund granted earlier should not be deducted from the refund arising while giving effect to the order of the Appellate Authorities. The learned AR submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order on 06.03.2013 and the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned orders on 13.08.2013. Hence on the date of passing of impugned rectifications orders the issue was debatable one. By placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Balram ITO Vs. Volkar Bros.(supra) has held that the decision taken on a debatable point of law shall not constitute a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned rectification orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and quash the impugned rectification orders. 10. Even on merit we notice that claim of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon ble Bombay Court rendered in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd. (Supra). It is also pertinent to note that the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Tata Power Co. Ltd (supra) was available on the date of passing of impugned rectification orders. Accordingly, we are of the view that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
