9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be two possible opinions - Decided against Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 18-4-2013 - MOHIT S. SHAH, SANKLECHA M. S., JJ JUDGMENT M. S. Sanklecha J.- In this appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2002-03, following questions of law have been raised for our consideration : (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that there could be argument on the issue relating to determination of period of delay in finalization of proceedings resulting in refund taking the matter out of purview of section 154 of the Act when this issue stood decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee claimed that the amount disclosed as retention money which was offered as income cannot be considered to be part of its income and, therefore, cannot be subjected to tax. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same and assessed the respondent-assessee to an income of Rs. 68.94 crores by an assessment order dated January 31, 2005. Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee carried the matter in appeal. By an order dated March 29, 2006, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee that the retention money cannot be considered to be part of the respondent-assessee's income. Consequent to the above, the Assessing Officer by an order dated June 28, 2006, gave effect to the order dated Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 of the said Act on September 26, 2006 ,to rectify the order dated June 28, 2006. This was on the ground that the issue of rectification was debatable and, therefore, not open to rectification proceedings ; and (b) the respondent-assessee was entitled to interest under section 244A of the said Act as the refund arose out of the appellate proceedings and no delay in the appellate proceedings was even attributed to the respondent-assessee by the Revenue. Thus, the respondent-assessee was entitled to interest on the refund. In respect of question (a), the grievance of the Revenue is that the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the said Act was warranted as the question of delay was not a debatable issue, in view of the communicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
