9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.02.2005 in accordance with Section 244A of the Act – matter remitted back to the AO - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case (Appeal). No. 1367 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman And T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar For the Respondent : Mr. R. Venkata Narayanan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman, J.) Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2001-02. At the time of admission, following question of law was raised:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that while giving effect to the ITAT's order dated 28.02.2005, it was noted that the assessee had TDS of Rs.1,72,90,710/- and the MAT credit available was Rs.83,73,659/-. Thus out of total tax of Rs.2,06,96,452/-, after giving credit to MAT credit of Rs.83,73,659/-, the TDS was adjusted resulting in a refund of Rs.49,67,917/-. In the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2005, the Assessing Officer pointed out that for the purpose of finding out the liability to payment of advance tax, the credit of MAT must first be given and then, on the balance of the tax payable, the liability to advance tax was to be worked out for the purpose of charging interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act; the Assessing Officer also poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due as per Section 244A of the Act contending that the Assessing Officer had not granted interest while refunding excess TDS. It pointed out that as per Section 244A of the Act, interest has to be granted upto the date of refund. To that end, the assessee relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., reported in 236 ITR 524. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however rejected the appeal holding that MAT credit allowed would not bear any interest; consequently, the Assessing Officer did not grant any interest on the MAT credit. 9. On appeal preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal, however referred to the decision in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be safely relied on by either parties before us. 12. As is evident from the reading of the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.02.2005, the assessee became entitled to refund consequent upon the deduction given on MAT credit and the TDS. 13. Thus, going by the factual details, the assessee is entitled to a refund of Rs.49,67,917/- and the deduction on TDS itself was before granting or charging any interest under any provisions of the Act. Hence, we hold that the proper course herein would be to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to work out interest on the refund payable to the assessee on the sum of Rs.49,67,917/- as ordered in the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.02.2005 in accordance with Section 244A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
