9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 629 - HC - Income TaxRemand order - Provision of interest on unpaid royalty - The Tribunal remanded the matter to CIT(A) with the direction to consider the claim of the assessee on the basis of evidence that may be produced by the assessee to establish that the liability to pay interest in respect of audit paras settled in assessment year 1997-98 had accrued during the relevant assessment years. In case necessary evidence is produced before CIT(A) to support the claim that interest on royalty, sales tax etc. with reference to audit paras had crystallized in the assessment year, the CIT(A) shall allow the claim of the assessee. - Held that - It is thus clear from the order dated 31.3.2008 that only limited issue was remitted by the Tribunal to CIT(A) and not the whole of the case. The assessee has been given liberty to adduce evidence. The Tribunal in the order dated 23.6.2009 has held that the order dated 31.3.2008 has been passed by the Tribunal on merit and the case has been remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee through the applications under Section 254(2) is trying to get the order reviewed which is not permissible in law.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of interest claim by Assessing Officer. 2. Remand by CIT(A) and directions to Assessing Officer. 3. Tribunal's decision on interest claim and remand. 4. CIT(A) decision and violation of Section 250. 5. Stand of revenue before Tribunal. 6. Tribunal's decision on CIT(A)'s violation and remand. 7. Tribunal's direction to CIT(A) for further consideration. 8. Tribunal's decision on revenue's appeal and CIT(A)'s order. 9. Tribunal's clarification on CIT(A)'s order and remand. 10. Appeal under Section 260A and Tribunal's decision. 11. Review of Tribunal's order and maintainability of appeal. 12. Conclusion of the judgment. Analysis: 1. The issues in this case revolve around the disallowance of interest claim by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The appellant had provided interest on unpaid royalty, which was disputed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds of crystallization and accrual of liability. 2. The CIT(A) remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for allowing interest on belated payment of royalty, emphasizing its compensatory nature and disallowing interest on interest as penal. The Tribunal later remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for quantifying the relief admissible to the appellant after verification, setting aside the CIT(A)'s penal nature finding on interest on interest. 3. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Section 250 and earlier directions by not deciding the issue himself after necessary verification. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the claim based on evidence produced by the appellant regarding the crystallization of interest liability. 4. The revenue contended that the appellant failed to produce relevant evidence before the CIT(A), and the claim should have been disallowed. However, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue himself after necessary verification, emphasizing the violation of Section 250 and earlier directions. 5. The Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) should pass a speaking order, spelling out the evidence produced before him. It was highlighted that the CIT(A)'s order was confined to the claim of interest with reference to unpaid royalty settled on the basis of audit paras, giving the appellant an opportunity to provide supporting evidence. 6. The appeal under Section 260A was deemed permissible if involving a substantial question of law. The Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the limited issue of interest claim, emphasizing that the order was confined to this claim only, not the whole case. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that there was no substantial question of law necessitating determination under Section 260A. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter in line with the Tribunal's directions, and the appellant could argue the maintainability of revenue's appeals before the CIT(A). 8. In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, and no other points were raised, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this case.
|
