9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT-2(1)/2013-14 dated 14-05-2013. The rectification order passed by DCIT Circle-2(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2004-05 vide order dated 28-07-2014 u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in these cross appeals is against the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO to grant interest under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax paid from the date of assessment order and not from the date of payment of self assessment tax. For this Revenue has raised following two grounds: - 1 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld . CIT ( A ) erred in interpreting the provision of Section 244A ( 1 )( b ) of IT Act . 2 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld . CIT ( A ) erred in directing the AO to grant interest u / s 244A ( 1 )( b ) on excess SA tax paid without appreciating the fact that in view of Explanation to Section 244A ( 1 )( b ) , the interest is payable only on the amount of tax paid in excess of tax / penalty specified in notice of demand issued u / s 156 of the IT Act . For this assessee has raised following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act amounting to ₹ 68 crores for the relevant AY 2004-05 on 28-04-2004. Pursuant to the order of CIT(A), certain portion of self assessment tax paid under section 140A of the Act became excess and refundable to the assessee. Aggrieved, against the non allowance of interest on refund, the assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaram vs. CIT (2012) 341 ITR 549 (Bom) allowed the claim of the assessee on excess payment of self assessment tax from the date of assessment order and not from the date of payment of self assessment tax by observing in Para 5.1, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 as under: - 5 . 1 I have carefully and dispassionately considered the facts and circumstances of the case, written submissions and arguments made by the Ld . AR before the undersigned . The appellant has raised solitary ground of appeal involving granting of interest u / s . 244A ( 1 )( b ) on delayed refund of self - assessment tax paid u1s . 140A of the Act, which is decided as under : - 5 . 2 . 1 Having considered the rival submissions, it is noted that the Section 244A ( 1 )( b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the Hon ble High Court considered this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee vide para 12 to 14 as under: - 12 . 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 Ltd .( 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 accordance with Section 140A of the Act . Secondly, the provisions of Section 244A ( 1 ) ( b ) very clearly mandate that the revenue would pay interest on the amount refunded for the period commencing from the date the payment of tax is made to the revenue upto the date when refund is granted to the revenue . Thus, the submission of Mr . Pinto that the interest is payable not from the date of payment but from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elaboration . The rectification of an order does not imply that the original order is replaced by a completely new order . In the instant case the assessing officer has attempted to substitute the original order which is not permissible u / s . 154 . An error, which is by no means self - evident, cannot be called an apparent error . Nevertheless a mistake capable of being rectified u / s . 154 is not limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes only . However it does not include any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof . Reference in this regard may be made to T . S . Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros ( 1971 ) 82 ITR 40 ( SC ). A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record . The ordinary meaning of the word apparent is that it should be something, which appears to be so ex facie that it does not admit scope for any argument or debate . It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus in the instant case there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified u / s . 154 of the Act . In that view of the matter, the question Nos . 1, 3 and 4 are answered in the affirmative . The question No . 2 is answered in the negative . We therefore direct the assessing officer to compute the interest payable from the date of payment of tax on the basis of self - assessment till the date of grant of refund . The revenue is directed to compute the interest due to the assessee and pay the same within a reasonable time . 6. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case it is clear that as per the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Stock Holding Corporation Of India Ltd. (Supra) and Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited (supra), we are of the view that refund u/s 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax is to be paid from the date of payment of self assessment tax till the date of grant of refund. Respectfully following the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Stock Holding Corporation Of India Ltd. (Supra), we direct the AO to allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
