9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as it may, in our view, if the proceedings resulting in refund are delayed on account of pendency of an application before the AAR, the same cannot be construed as ‘reasons attributable to the assessee’ within the meaning of Sec. 244A(2) of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid stand of CIT(A), in our view, is untenable in law. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, in the present case, the provisions of Sec. 244A(2) of the Act cannot be invoked by the Assessing Officer to deny interest u/s 244A(1) of the Act on account of delay in grant of refund from the period 1.4.2003 up to the date of grant of such refund, i.e., 20.7.2006. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 2619/MUM/2008 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Girish Dave For The Revenue : Shri Samir Tekriwal ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 14.02.2008, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 10.01.2006 under section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest u/s 244A of the Act of ₹ 7,59,607/- for the period 1.11.2005 (being the month in which Indemnity Bond was filed) to January, 2006 (being the month in which order u/s 154 was passed). On 20.7.2006, a refund order of ₹ 5,10,96,214/-, net of TDS was granted to the assessee. 4. In the aforesaid background, the grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has allowed interest for delay in grant of refund only for the period 1.11.2005 to 10.1.2006 whereas the interest on delayed grant of refund in terms of Sec. 244A(1) of the Act accrues to the assessee from 1.4.2003 up to the date of grant of refund, i.e., 20.7.2006. 5. Per contra, the stand of the Revenue is that the proceedings resulting in the refund were delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee up to the date of filing of Indemnity Bond by the assessee and, therefore, the interest for delay in grant of refund has been allowed by the Assessing Officer correctly from November, 2005 to January, 2006. 6. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee vehemently pointed out that there was no delay on the part of the assessee inasmuch as the TDS certificates were duly annexed with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted. In the present case, the claim set-up by the assessee is that it has been found that assessee was entitled to the refund of the TDS and, therefore, it is entitled to interest from the first day of the assessment year, i.e., from 1.4.2003 and up to the date on which the refund has been granted, which is 20.7.2006. We find that the Assessing Officer has allowed interest partly, i.e., for the period 1.11.2005 up to 10.1.2006. Therefore, the aforesaid fact-situation shows that entitlement of the assessee for interest on delayed refund is established though the difference between the assessee and the Revenue is with regard to the period for which such interest is to be allowed. 9. For such situations, sub-section (2) of Sec. 244A of the Act prescribes that where the proceedings resulting in refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, the period of delay so attributable to assessee shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable. In this case, the first point made by the Revenue is that the TDS certificate for ₹ 5,06,31,000/- issued by the tax deductor did not bear the stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in construing that the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee within the meaning of Sec. 244A(2) of the Act. 11. Apart therefrom, CIT(A) has made a reference to the fact that assessee had earned certain income from transaction with EAC Nutrition, Denmark for which assessee was claiming non-taxability in India and its application in this regard was pending with the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The CIT(A) further noticed that the AAR, vide its ruling dated 18.10.2004, held that such income was not chargeable to tax. According to the CIT(A), since assessee had filed an application before the AAR, it was not possible for the Assessing Officer either to include such income in the total income or not to include it in the total income and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not in a position to adjust the TDS to tax or refund it to the assessee. According to the CIT(A), assessee s application pending before the AAR prevented the Assessing Officer from giving credit for such TDS and, therefore, such delay in grant of refund is for reasons attributable to the assessee. In this manner, the CIT(A) has sought to justify invoki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
