9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1354 - AT - Income TaxGrant interest U/S.244A on the self assessment tax paid - Revenue s case is that self assessment tax in question is not entitled for section 244A interest and the same is further allowable in advance tax/TDS/TCS and taxes paid in compliance to a demand notice u/s. 156 - CIT(A) allowed interest - Held that - View favouring the assessee holding self assessment tax to be entitled for section 244A interest has to be adopted in this backdrop of conflicting judicial precedents. We order accordingly and uphold the CIT(A) s order - Decided against revenue Revenue s second argument that the CIT(A) has ignored the Assessing Officer s findings alleging the assessee to have caused delay in refund on account of non-furnishing of proof of tax payment nowhere forms part of adjudication in the lower appellate order. It is evident that the Assessing Officer s relevant findings are only in the context of section 244A interest on TDS payment of ₹ 15,401/- nowhere germane to the issues raised in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly rejected. - Decided against revenue Interest on interest - Held that - As decided in CIT, Gujarat vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals 2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest. We follow the hon ble apex court s decision and hold that the CIT(A) has erred in awarding interest on interest in assessee s favour - Decided in favour of revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest under section 244A on self-assessment tax. 2. Allegation of delay in refund due to non-furnishing of proof of tax payment. 3. Entitlement to interest on interest as compensation. Issue 1: Entitlement to Interest under Section 244A on Self-Assessment Tax: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest under section 244A on self-assessment tax paid. The Revenue argued that interest under section 244A is allowable only on advance tax/TDS/TCS and taxes paid in compliance with a notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's entitlement to interest. The Tribunal noted conflicting judicial precedents but favored the assessee, citing judgments in the assessee's favor. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of cogent evidence supporting the Revenue's stance. Issue 2: Allegation of Delay in Refund due to Non-furnishing of Proof of Tax Payment: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) ignored the Assessing Officer's findings regarding delay in refund due to the assessee's failure to provide proof of tax payment. However, the Tribunal found that this ground was not part of the lower appellate order's adjudication. The Assessing Officer's findings were related to TDS payment and not relevant to the issues raised in the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected this argument as it lacked relevance to the case. Issue 3: Entitlement to Interest on Interest as Compensation: The Revenue raised an argument regarding interest on interest, citing a case law involving compensation for delay in payment. The Tribunal examined the relevant apex court decision and concluded that the assessee's claim for interest as compensation lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in awarding interest on interest to the assessee, aligning with the apex court's decision. Consequently, the Revenue's argument on interest on interest was upheld, and the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of entitlement to interest under section 244A on self-assessment tax, delay in refund due to non-furnishing of proof of tax payment, and entitlement to interest on interest as compensation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the first issue, rejected the Revenue's argument on the second issue, and upheld the Revenue's argument on the third issue, partially allowing the Revenue's appeal.
|
