2010 (9) TMI 1162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Tribunal on 22nd Jan., 2010. The Tribunal has held that since the order of assessment was set aside in appeal, interest could not be levied under s. 220(2) and in such a situation, demand is required to be raised afresh thereafter interest has to be paid. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vs. ITO (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 1 : (2001) 247 ITR 821 (SC) and the decision of F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rsuant to the appellate order and, thereafter, assessment order has been affirmed again, fresh demand was to be raised, original demand does not survive. In the instant case also, the order of assessment was set aside. Only the fact that amount was not deposited initially would not change the effect of setting aside the order of assessment by the CIT(A) in the appeal. Once the order has bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mand notice and there should be a default in paying the amount so demanded within the stipulated time in the notice. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of SMS Schlomann Siemag vs. Dy. CIT (supra) was pleased to hold that interest under s. 220(2) could not be charged from the date of original demand notice wherein appeal from the assessment order was allowed with refund .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X