9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment tax without appreciating that the words "in any other case" occurring in section 244A(1)(b) cannot be construed to include in clause (a) of section 244A(1) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that no interest u/s. 234D is chargeable for A.Y. 2001-02" Ground No. 1: 3. After hearing both the parties, we find that a return declaring income of Rs.11,01,00,465/- was filed, assessment on which was completed and certain additions were made and demand of Rs.67,82,388/- was created. Later on, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) where some relief was given to the assessee. An order giving effect to the appeal was passed, through which a refund o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould also be taken into consideration while determining the interest u/s.244A. This decision has been followed in other decisions also. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. Ground No.2: 8. Both the parties were heard. 9. After considering the rival submissions, we find hat the issue raised in this ground is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal wherein it is clearly held that no interest can be charged u/s.234D for assessment year 2001-02 and following the decision, we decide this issue also against the Revenue. 10. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 4754/Mum/2010 (By Assessee): 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the refund till date and is holding on to assessee's legitimate dues by way of refund for many years. Once the Revenue was holding to such money without any reasonable cause, then interest has to be granted as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). He also relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Eternit Everest Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 12 SOT 40 (Mum). 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there was no provision in the Act for allowance of interest on interest. Therefore, no such interest could be allowed. He also strongly relied on para 6.3 of the order of CIT(A). 15. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. The refund became due to the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
