9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) did not commit any error in granting the impugned interest to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 5426 & 5427/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - I P Bansal, JM And Rajendra, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla For the Respondent : Shri Nitesh Joshi ORDER Per I P Bansal, JM. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are directed against two separate orders passed by Ld. CIT(A)-13 dated 24/05/2013 and 30/05/2013 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12 respectively. Grounds of appeal in both the appeals are identical and read as under: 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for interest on refund as per clause (b) of Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led a rectification application which was rejected by AO and Ld. CIT(A) accepted such claim of the assessee and has recomputed the interest payable to the assessee in respect of self assessment made in respect of both the years and refund adjusted in respect of assessment year 2007- 08. 3. Relying upon the grounds of appeal it was submitted by Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in granting the interest to the assessee on the payment of self assessment tax as well as refund adjustment in respect of A.Y 2007-08. 4. At the outset it was pointed out by Ld. AR that issue regarding grant of interest on self assessment is no more res-integra as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not tax and, therefore, no interest can be granted on refund on such amount which are not taxed. 4.1 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court have also rejected the contention of the Revenue that relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals, 363 ITR 658, interest should not be paid to the assessee on self assessment. Their Lordships after considering the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the said decision would not be applicable and the relevant observations are reproduced below: 10. The only distinction being made in the present facts and those of Apex Court decision in Tata Chemicals is that the amount paid as tax on self assessment was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue that payment of interest should only be made from the date of the notice under section 156 with the following observations: Similarly, the next contention urged on behalf of the revenue that the payment of interest should only be made from the date of notice under Section 156 of the Act is issued to the petitioner in terms of Explanation to Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, as held by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals (supra), the Explanation would have effect only where payments of tax have been made pursuant to notice under Section 156 of the Act. In this case, the payment has not been made pursuant to any notice of demand but prior to the filing of the return of income in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the date of refund i.e. 24 October 1998. The revenue is directed to compute the interest due to the petitioner and pay the same within six weeks from today. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the grounds of appeal and order passed by AO. 6. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. The issue raised by the Revenue is covered against the Revenue by the aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The relevant observations have already been reproduced. Respectfully following the same we hold that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in granting the impugned interest to the assessee. Finding no merit both the appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed. 7. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
