9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 753 - HC - Income TaxInterest u/s 244A - interest on interest, where there is no inordinate delay in payment of refund - HELD THAT - The view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT has since been reversed by later decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals 2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT in which, taking note of the said decision of Sandvik Asia Ltd., as well as the later amendment of law with effect from 01.04.1989 by insertion of Section 244A of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that it is only the interest provided for under Section 244A of the Act, which may be claimed by the Assessee on the refunds, and no other interest can be claimed by the Assessee. We remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal to decide the Appeal again in accordance with law, in view of the later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the amendment of law.
Issues:
- Substantial Question of Law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Revenue should pay interest on interest without inordinate delay in refund payment? Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1969, challenging the order of the Income Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1993-1994. The key issue was whether the Revenue should pay interest on interest in the absence of significant delay in refund payment. 2. The Tribunal based its decision on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT (280 ITR 643), which led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. 3. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (2013) 358 ITR 291, which reversed the earlier ruling in Sandvik Asia Ltd., clarified that only interest under Section 244A of the Act could be claimed by the Assessee on refunds. The Counsel highlighted paragraph 8 of the judgment, emphasizing that no other interest could be claimed by the Assessee. 4. Given the change in legal interpretation due to the subsequent Supreme Court ruling and the amendment of the law effective from 01.04.1989 with the insertion of Section 244A, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the updated legal position. 5. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Revenue's appeal without addressing the initial Question of Law, directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the case based on the revised legal framework established by the Supreme Court's later decision and the statutory amendment. No costs were awarded in this disposition.
|
