9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 three grounds: - "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] ought to have directed that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A(1)(b) from the date of payment of Self-Assessment Tax (28.04.2004) to the date on which refund of excess Self-Assessment Tax was granted (22.02.12). 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on refund of excess Self-Assessment tax from the date of the assessment order and not from the date of payment of Self-Assessment Tax. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] ought to have directed that assessee was entitled to interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on the following amounts for the following period: Amount (Rs.) From To 3188,53, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions, it is noted that the Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, on which the appellant has placed reliance, is a specific provision which deals with interest on refunds "in any other case". It states that where refund of any amount becomes due to assessee under the Act, he is entitled to receive the said amount along with simple interest thereon. Thus, the provisions of Section 244A(1)(b) are relevant for this appeal. Here, the self-assessment tax u/s.140A of the Act of Rs.68 crores has been admittedly paid by the appellant on 28th April, 2004. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant could have claimed interest on self-assessment tax and the A.O. is duty-bound to grant interest u/s.244A(1)(b) of the Act on refund of excess payment of self-assessment tax from the date of assessment order and not from the date of payment of self-assessment tax. Strong reliance is placed on the following decisions: - * Sitararn vs. CIT (2012) 341 ITR 549 (Bom) * (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Delhi) * India Trade Promotion Organization vs. CIT (2013) 263 CTR (Del) 18 * Addl. CIT vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd. (2006) 100 lTD 245 (Mumbai) * Addl. CIT vs. Novartis India Ltd. (ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions rendered by Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Vijaya Bank [2011] 338 ITR 489/201 Taxman 371/12 taxmann.com 485 and Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sutlej Industries Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 331/190 Taxman 136 (Delhi). In both cases in identical circumstances it was held that interest is payable from the date of payment of the tax on self- assessment to the date of refund of the amounts under Section 244A of the Act. 14. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 28 September 1999. We direct the Assessing Officer to compute the interest payable from the date of payment on self-assessment tax i.e. 31 August 1994 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 this the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Engineers India Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 377 (Del) wherein the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court was considered. The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. in ITA No. 526 of 2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment tax. In K.K.J. Foundations -Vs.- The Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITA. No. 242 of 2014) the Kerala High Court by Judgment dated 8th September 2015 held as follows:- "By invoking the power of rectification, the ultimate conclusion of a decision cannot be changed. So also, the employment of the words phraseologies in Sec.154 shows that by rectification it intended only to correct any mistake and amend the same accordingly. It is a settled proposition of law that rectification is a process by which a mistake is set at right. It thus means correcting an error which was apparent from record and not deciding the matter over and again on merits and that the rectified order does not supersede the original order but continues with the incorporated changes. Moreover, we have come across two judgments of the 'Hon'ble Apex Court in 'S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka' [(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595] and 'Ammonia Supplies Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd.' [AIR 1998 SC 3153], by which it was held in the former judgment that rectification of an order stems from fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
