9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee’s appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes. Grant interest on interest u/s 244A - inordinate delay in granting the refund to the assessee - Held that:- here is no provision in the Income Tax Act to grant interest on interest, whatsoever of any nature and whatsoever are the circumstances. We, as a quasi-judicial authority, could not go beyond realm of the provisions of law and are bound by the statutory provisions. Therefore, on factual matrix, we find ourselves in agreement with the subsequent judgment of larger bench of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemical(2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT). Therefore, respectfully following the same and in view of the statutory provisions as contained in Section 244A, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee could not be granted any interest whatsoever of any nature which was not authorized by the express provisions of law. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No.1555/Mum/2015, I.T.A. No.829 &210/Mum/2016, I.T.A. No.1619/Mum/2015, I .T.A. No.1620/Mum/2015 And I .T.A. No.1621/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the acquisition cost / book value / market value on the date of transfer and resultant reduction in value was provided for in the books by way of amortization charges. The transfer was permissible once in a year as per RBI guidelines and accordingly the assessee on 11/02/2005 shifted bonds having book value of ₹ 218.96 crores to HTM category. However, the assessee did not provided the depreciation since it had approached RBI for amortizing losses incurred on their bond portfolios. Pursuant to same, the assessee started amortizing the same to the extent of 20% of the losses of ₹ 20.09 Crores from AY 2005-06 and accordingly, amortized the same for ₹ 4.02 Crores in the impugned AY. Similar amortization amounting to ₹ 1.60 Crores was claimed against certain other investments. However, not convinced Ld. AO, disallowed the assessee s claim which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of this Tribunal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee [AR], at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that assessee suffered similar disallowance in AY 2006-07 2007-08 which was contested without any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the same stands dismissed in limine. The only effective ground is Ground No. 4 which reads as under:- 4.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that ground No. 4 relating to not allowing the carry forward of losses of years earlier than A.Y. s 2007-08 that this issue can be remedied u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, under these circumstances the appellant can approach the A.O. on this issue who is directed to verify and give effect to the rectification, if required. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have decided this ground himself as he has no power to set aside the matter back to AO. 8. Facts qua the issue are that Ld. AO has adjusted carried forward losses of AY 2007-08 2008-09 against income determined u/s 143(3). However, before appellate authority, the assessee pointed out that the assessee had losses of earlier years prior to AY 2007-08 which were first required to be adjusted. However, Ld. CIT(A) opined that the same could be considered by Ld. AO u/s 154. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. We find that matter to be factual one and hence, deem it fit to restore the matter ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvik Asia Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and others 280 ITR 643 (SC). Per contra, revenue has placed reliance on subsequent judgment of Apex Court rendered in CIT vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2014] 43 taxmann.com 350 (SC) . 13. Upon perusal of the same, we find that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to grant interest on interest, whatsoever of any nature and whatsoever are the circumstances. We, as a quasi-judicial authority, could not go beyond realm of the provisions of law and are bound by the statutory provisions. Therefore, on factual matrix, we find ourselves in agreement with the subsequent judgment of larger bench of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in CIT vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals 358 ITR 291 (SC) where the Hon ble Court considering the judgment of Sandvik Asia Ltd. held as under:- 6. In our considered view, the aforesaid judgment has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue. They are of the view that in Sandvik Asia Ltd.'s case (supra), this Court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment. In other words, the interpretation placed is that the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
