9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on delayed refunds under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act. 2. Appealability of the order refusing to grant interest to the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refunds under Section 244A: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to interest on delayed refunds under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue argued that the CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest on the entire amount refundable, without distinguishing between the tax and interest components. The Revenue cited the case of Kurumber Betta Estate v. ITO [2002] 257 ITR 328 (Ker.), where it was held that Section 244A applies only to excess amounts of tax, penalty, tax collected at source, or advance tax, and does not cover interest on interest. Conversely, the assessee argued that Section 244A encompasses "any amount" due, including interest on the tax refundable. The assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC), which held that if there is a delay in getting the refund, the assessee is entitled to interest on the interest due on the amount of tax. The Tribunal noted that Section 244A, applicable from the assessment year 1989-90, provides for interest on refunds due to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the term "refund" in Section 244A includes both the tax and the interest due on that tax. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd., which established that the assessee is entitled to compensation by way of interest for delays in payment of amounts lawfully due. The Tribunal also noted that the principles applicable to the earlier provisions (Sections 214, 243, and 244) are equally applicable to Section 244A. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT (Appeals) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to pay interest on the interest due on the amount of tax refundable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (Appeals) order and confirmed it. 2. Appealability of the Order Refusing to Grant Interest: The second issue pertains to whether the order refusing to grant interest is appealable. The Revenue argued that such an order is not appealable, citing precedents like CIT v. H.V. Mirchandani [1986] 161 ITR 800 (Kar.) and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC). The assessee, however, relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Industrial Machinery Mfg. (P.) Ltd. [2006] 282 ITR 595, which held that an order refusing to grant interest is appealable. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, which lists the orders that can be challenged before the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that Section 246A(1)(c) allows the assessee to challenge an order made under Section 154 that reduces the refund. Since interest is part of the refund, the denial of interest constitutes a reduction in the refund due, making the order appealable. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Industrial Machinery Mfg. (P.) Ltd., which held that an order refusing to grant interest is appealable, and the Tribunal agreed with this interpretation. The Tribunal held that the CIT (Appeals) rightly entertained and decided the appeals filed by the assessee. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the Revenue, affirming that the assessee is entitled to interest on delayed refunds under Section 244A and that the order refusing to grant interest is appealable.
|
