Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 (1) , Mumbai Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Vice-Versa

2017 (9) TMI 799 - ITAT MUMBAI

Grant interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on self assessment tax - paid from the date of assessment order OR from the date of payment of self assessment tax - Held that:- As per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Stock Holding Corporation Of India Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 899 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited (2016 (2) TMI 470 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ), we are of the view that refund u/s 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/DCIT-2(1)/2013-14 dated 14-05-2013. The rectification order passed by DCIT Circle-2(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2004-05 vide order dated 28-07-2014 u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in these cross appeals is against the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO to grant interest under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax paid from the date of assessment order and not from the date of payment of self assessment tax. For this Revenue has raised fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ied in notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the IT Act. For this assessee has raised following three grounds: - 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] ought to have directed that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A(1)(b) from the date of payment of Self-Assessment Tax (28.04.2004) to the date on which refund of excess Self-Assessment Tax was granted (22.02.12). 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is engaged in the business of refining of crude oil and marketing of petroleum products all over India. Originally assessment was framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27-12-2006 by making certain disallowance/ rejection of claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who vide his order dated 01-06-2011 allowed the deductions in respect to some issues. Consequent to the appellant order of CIT(A), AO passed the order giving effect to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessment tax paid, which became refundable consequent to the order of CIT(A). The assessee claimed that assessee corporation paid self-assessment tax under section 140A of the Act amounting to ₹ 68 crores for the relevant AY 2004-05 on 28-04-2004. Pursuant to the order of CIT(A), certain portion of self assessment tax paid under section 140A of the Act became excess and refundable to the assessee. Aggrieved, against the non allowance of interest on refund, the assessee preferred the appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before the undersigned. The appellant has raised solitary ground of appeal involving granting of interest u/s.244A(1)(b) on delayed refund of self- assessment tax paid u1s.140A of the Act, which is decided as under: - 5.2.1 Having considered the rival submissions, it is noted that the Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, on which the appellant has placed reliance, is a specific provision which deals with interest on refunds "in any other case". It states that where refund of any amount becom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payment of self-assessment tax from the date of assessment order and not from the date of payment of self-assessment tax. Strong reliance is placed on the following decisions: - • Sitararn vs. CIT (2012) 341 ITR 549 (Bom) • (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Delhi) • India Trade Promotion Organization vs. CIT (2013) 263 CTR (Del) 18 • Addl. CIT vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd. (2006) 100 lTD 245 (Mumbai) • Addl. CIT vs. Novartis India Ltd. (ITA No. 5848/Mum/2000) 5.2.2 Having regard to the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in cross appeal against the direction of CIT(A) not allowing the refund on excess payment of self assessment tax from the date of payment of self assessment tax. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that this issue is settled by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Stock holding corporation vs. NC Tewari [2015] 373 ITR 282 (Bombay) wherein, after considering the provisions of section 244A (1b) of the Act, the Hon ble High Court considered this issue and allowed the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

notice under Section 156 of the Act. In this case, the payment has not been made pursuant to any notice of demand but prior to the filing of the return of income in accordance with Section 140A of the Act. Secondly, the provisions of Section 244A(1) (b) very clearly mandate that the revenue would pay interest on the amount refunded for the period commencing from the date the payment of tax is made to the revenue upto the date when refund is granted to the revenue. Thus, the submission of Mr. Pin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 331/190 Taxman 136 (Delhi). In both cases in identical circumstances it was held that interest is payable from the date of payment of the tax on self- assessment to the date of refund of the amounts under Section 244A of the Act. 14. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 28 September 1999. We direct the Assessing Officer to compute the interest payable from the date of payment on self-assessment tax i.e. 31 August 1994 till the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion Ltd. in ITA No. 526 of 2004, wherein the issue of refund on self-assessment tax was granted from the date of making payment till the date of grant of refund from the date of payment till the date of grant of refund by observing in final finding as under: - U/s. 154 of the Act only a mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable. Thus the precondition to invoke section 154 is the presence of a mistake and that the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify a mistake u/s.15 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der which is not permissible u/s.154. An error, which is by no means self-evident, cannot be called an apparent error. Nevertheless a mistake capable of being rectified u/s. 154 is not limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes only. However it does not include any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. Reference in this regard may be made to T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC). A decision on a debatable point of law or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 244A does not mandate that interest cannot be allowed on self assessment tax paid u/s 140A. As discussed earlier it cannot be said that interest u/s.244A can be allowed only in cases where excess payments of tax is made consequent to a notice of demand u/s.156. The language of the Act is clear and there is no ambiguity in it. Hence the assessee is clearly entitled to claim interest u/s.244A on refund of excess self assessment tax. In K.K.J. Foundations -Vs.- The Assistant Director of Income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which was apparent from record and not deciding the matter over and again on merits and that the rectified order does not supersede the original order but continues with the incorporated changes. Moreover, we have come across two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595] and 'Ammonia Supplies Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd.' [AIR 1998 SC 3153], by which it was held in the former judgment that re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version