9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of following grounds: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting interest under s. 132B(4)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, on Rs. 8,67,129 @ 15 per cent per annum from 27th April, 2001 to 3rd Oct., 2002. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting interest on interest on the aforesaid amount and also int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period of delay in granting refund and also the interest on interest for the period of delay. 3.1 The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A) by relying on the decisions in the following cases: (i) For his claim of interest for the delayed period reliance was placed on the following decisions: (1) Anil Kumar D. Gujjar vs. CIT (1996) 220 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4. The facts relating to the issue are that a cash of Rs. 27 lakhs was seized from the assessee at the time of search under s. 132 of the IT Act on 1st Oct., 1999, out of which an amount of Rs. 18,32,871 was adjusted against the demand created as a result of assessment of block period completed on 27th April, 2001. The balance amount of Rs. 8,67,129 became refundable to the assessee on 27th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case. The contention of the appellant that sum of Rs. 8,67,129 was unnecessarily withheld by the Department from 27th April, 2001 to 3rd Oct., 2002, without any reason is found to be correct. I am satisfied with the contention of the appellant on the principle of natural justice. Respectfully following the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and other Courts relied upon by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
