9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal when no such appeal lies before ITAT or before CIT(A) because as per the provisions of Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act, decision of CIT is final as held by Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala Civil Supplies 185 taxman 1.?" 3. The issue pertains to interest payable to the respondent - assessee under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). The Revenue does not dispute either the assessee's claim of refund or that ordinarily under sub-section (1) of Section 244A of the Act, such refund would carry interest at statutorily prescribed rate. However, according to the Revenue, by virtue of subsection (2) of Section 244A of the Act, since the delay in the proceedings resulting in the refund was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal, was, therefore correct in allowing the interest to the assessee. 8. We may notice that in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd Vs. Deputy CIT (Guj) [2017] 391 ITR 33 (Guj), the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. The assessee had made a belated claim during assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 244A of the Act were sought to be pressed in service. The Court made following observations: "16. We would also examine the order of the Commissioner on merits. As noted, according to the Commissioner the assessee had rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the assessee. 17. The Department does not contend that the assessee had needlessly or frivolously delayed the assessment proceedings at the original or appellate stage. In absence of any such foundation, mere fact that the assessee made a claim during the course of the assessment proceedings which was allowed at the appellate stage would not ipso facto imply that the assessee was responsible for causing the delay in the proceedings resulting into refund. We may refer the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of CIT Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., reported in (2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker) in which the assessee had raised a belated claim for deduction which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, therefore, contended that f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
