1984 (7) TMI 104 - AT - Income Tax

Advance Tax, Interest On Refund, Interest Payable By Government, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Refund Of Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the interest allowed to the assessee under sections 214 and 244(1A) was in accordance with the law.
2. Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the order when the ITO had not passed any specific order regarding interest.
3. Whether the Bombay High Court's decision in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. and other related judgments support the withdrawal of interest allowed to the assessee.
4. Whether the interest under section 244(1A) was rightly allowed to the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the interest allowed to the assessee under sections 214 and 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner, under section 263, directed the ITO to recover the interest wrongly allowed to the assessee. The assessee contended that the interest was determined based on calculations on Form ITNS-150 and not through a specific order by the ITO. However, the Commissioner found the interest allowed by the ITO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The Tribunal held that even though there was no specific order in writing, the directions to allow interest constituted an order for the purpose of section 263.

2. The assessee argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 263 to revise a non-existent order. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing that the word 'order' had not been defined in the Act and that directions to allow interest could be considered as an order. The Tribunal also referred to legal definitions of 'order' to support its interpretation. Additionally, the Tribunal considered various judicial decisions and upheld the Commissioner's order to withdraw the interest wrongly allowed under section 214.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the Bombay High Court's decision in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., a Full Bench decision that was against the assessee. Despite the assessee's reliance on other judgments, including those from the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order based on the Bombay High Court's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the Full Bench decision and rejected the contention that other judgments should take precedence.

4. Regarding the interest under section 244(1A), the Tribunal found that the Bombay High Court's decision did not cover this issue. After reviewing the provisions of section 244(1A), the Tribunal concluded that the interest under this section was rightly allowed to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the Commissioner's order and directed the ITO to withdraw the interest allowed under section 214 only, while upholding the allowance of interest under section 244(1A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, withdrawing the interest wrongly allowed under section 214 but maintaining the interest allowed under section 244(1A) for the assessee.