9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. 4. The argument is that the amount was paid under a self-assessment and made by the assessee. Initially, it filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 60,80,880/. That was filed on 8th January, 2009. This return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act") and the case was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Notices were issued and served upon the respondent assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is made in past almost all assessment years. Since the facts and circumstances pertaining to the assessment year in question are identical, hence he made addition of Rs. 30,38,14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax which has already been paid under the provisions of the IT Act. In the present case, the assessee paid tax in the month of July, 2008 for the assessment year 2008-2009. The due date for filing return was 30th September, 2008. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the tax was already paid. 8. The tax paid by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 4.50 crores is nothing but tax paid under self-assessment for the purpose of Section 140A and once that is so, the assessee is entitled to interest. 9. The Tribunal followed a judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. vs Vijaya Bank, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 489 (Kar.) and that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (supra), which discusses all these questions and answers them against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, should be brushed aside or ignored. It is not shown to be per incuriam, nor is it demonstrated that this judgment has not been accepted by the Revenue, and therefore, challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that challenge is pending or this judgment has been reversed. 15. In the absence of such material on record, we do not think that the Division Bench judgment, which discusses all the questions and which are identical to the present case, should be discarded in this manner. Judicial discipline demands that we follow and apply it to the case at hand because the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
