9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I GEORGE GEORGE K, JJ. Appellant by : Shri S K Ambastha, CIT (DR-I), ITAT. Respondent by : Shri Tanmayee, Advocate ORDER PER BENCH : These five appeals instituted by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of the CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore dated 18.10.2010, 25.10.10, 19.10.10, 22.10.10 and 20.10.10 respectively. The relevant assessment years are 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2004-05. 2. The Revenue had, in its identical grounds of appeals for the assessment years under dispute, raised nine grounds, out of which, ground Nos. 1, 8 and 9 are general in nature and no specific adjudication is called for; hence, the same are dismissed. The remaining grounds are relating to the solitary issue, namely, the learned CIT (A) had failed to appreciate that interest can be paid only on the tax portion in the refund and not on the entire amount of refund. 3. As the issue raised in these appeals are common and pertains to the same assessee, for the sake of convenience, they were heard, considered together and disposed off in this consolidated order. 4. Before venturing in to take up the issue for adjudication, we would like to reiterate that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goodyear India Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 527 wherein it was held that an assessee was entitled to further interest u/s 244 on interest u/s 214 which had been withheld by the Revenue. The case of the Revenue was that interest payable to an assessee u/s 214 was not a refund as defined in sec.237 and, hence, no interest could be granted to the assessee u/s 244. The Delhi High Court held that for this purpose, Sec. 240 was relevant which referred to refund of any amount becoming due to an assessee and that the said phrase would include interest. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to further interest on interest wrongfully withheld. It is also significant that the Delhi High Court referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in D.J. Words (supra) and read it as taking the same view. Attention was drawn to the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Needle Industries (P) Ltd (1998) 233 ITR 370 wherein the phrase any amount was interpreted in the same manner when considering the provisions of Sec. 244(1A) which also uses the same phrase in the context of interest payable by the Revenue. In express terms the Court held that the expression referred not o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was contended that the ratio laid down in the above judgments cannot be applied to the instant case inasmuch as these cases relate to assessment year prior to 1989-90 when section 244 and not section 244A was in operation. It was, further, argued that there was a marked difference between these two sections; namely, section 244 which allows interest on the amount of refund as against section 244A which allows interest on any tax. It was, therefore, argued that in view of specific language in s.244A, interest can be paid only on the tax portion in the refund and not on the entire amount of refund. To drive home his point, the Ld. D R had placed strong reliance on the ruling of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Motor and General Finance Ltd. and Others v. CIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 88 (Del). 7.2 On the other hand, the learned A R submitted that the issue had, in fact, been analyzed comprehensively and arrived at a conclusion by the learned CIT (A) in a judicious manner which, according to the learned AR, requires no intervention of this Bench. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available records and also the various rulings of j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was liable to pay interest at the rate applicable to the excess amount refunded to the assessee. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are of the considered opinion that grant of interest on interest is permissible and the change in the provision does not affect the same It may not be out of place to mention here that the Hon ble High Court of M.P had, in fact, analyzed the issue as to whether that assesee [H.E.G. Ltd] was entitled to interest on interest u/s 244A of the Act or otherwise contrary to the claim of the Revenue in the present appeal under consideration. 8.3 We have, with due respects, perused the ruling of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Motor and General Finance Ltd v. CIT (supra) relied on by the Revenue. We find that, the assertion of the Hon ble Court is conformity with the findings of this Bench supra. For ready reference, we reproduce the relevant ruling of the Hon ble Court as under: When the refund of tax becomes payable as a result of orders passed in appeal or other proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, this refund is to be given along with interest which is to be calculated as per section 244A of the Act. If that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
