9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order before him was an order passed by the A.O u/s 154 of the Act declining the assessee s request for rectification, had thus, proceeded with on the basis of the said misconceived factual position and had dismissed the assessee s appeal, for the reason, that the claim of the assessee did not fall within the realm of a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Sec. 154 We concur with the claim of the ld. A.R that both the lower authorities had proceeded with the matter on the basis of misconceived and incorrect facts. We, thus, in the totality of the facts involved in the case before us restore the issue to the file of the A.O who shall comply with the directions given by the CIT(A) which read as that A.O has not granted interest u/s. 244A on the refund ranted on rectification order passed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It has been pointed that the A.O has passed the rectification order u/s 514 of the I.T. Act, 1961 giving credit of ₹ 50 lacs paid as self assessment tax by the appellant without granting interest u/s 244A Assessee shall in the course of the set-aside proceedings remain at a liberty to substantiate its entitlement for interest u/s 244A on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company had filed a revised return of income for A.Y 1997-98 on 31.12.1997, wherein against its tax liability of ₹ 6,54,574/- it had after claiming credit for taxes of ₹ 1,11,38,699/- paid had raised a claim for refund of an amount of ₹ 1,04,84,127/-. Intimation u/s 143(1)(a), dated 30.03.1998 was issued to the assessee wherein credit for the amount of self-assessment tax of ₹ 50 lac was not given. On a rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act, the A.O though vide his order dated 07.03.2002 allowed credit of the self-assessment tax of ₹ 50 lac but did not grant interest u/s 244A on the said amount. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 154 before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide his order dated 04.02.2010 directed the A.O to verify the facts and grant interest u/s 244A of the Act, as per law. 4. The A.O vide his order u/s 154, dated 08.03.2018, therein, inter alia, declined the assessee s claim for grant of interest on the amount of the self- assessment tax. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the aforesaid impugned order passed by the A.O u/s 154, dated 08.03.2018 i.e the Order Giving Effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) vide his order dated 04.02.2010 had restored the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to him to verify the facts and grant interest u/s 244A, as per law. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O instead of passing the consequential Order Giving Effect (OGE) pursuant to the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), dated 04.02.2010, had wrongly passed the order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 08.03.2018. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O instead of passing the OGE i.e u/s 154 r.w.s 250, had wrongly passed the order u/s 154, dated 08.03.2018 and declined the assessee s claim for interest u/s 244A on the amount of self-assessment tax of ₹ 50 lac. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the mistake on the part of the A.O in wrongly passing the order u/s 154, dated 08.03.2018 (as against u/s 154 r.w.s 254 of the Act) was thereafter allowed to perpetuate by the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that the impugned order in question was in pith and substance an OGE giving effect to the order passed by the CIT(A), dated 04.02.2010, and had wrongly upheld the view taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason, that as there was no mistake apparent from record, therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the order passed by the A.O u/s 154 of the Act, dated 08.03.2018 declining the assessee s application u/s 154 of the Act. 9. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we find substantial force in the claim of the ld. A.R that both the lower authorities had proceeded on the basis of misconceived and incorrect facts. As stated by the ld. A.R, and rightly so, the A.O instead of giving effect to the directions that were issued by the CIT(A), vide his order dated 04.02.2010, wherein he was directed to verify the facts and grant interest u/ 244A as per law, had instead passed an order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 08.03.2018. On a perusal of the order passed by the A.O u/s 154, dated 08.03.2018 [which is a supposedly the order passed by him giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), dated 04.02.2010], we find, that he despite having been specifically directed by the CIT(A) to verify the facts and grant the interest u/s 244A as per law, however, had failed to give effect to the said directions by way of a speaking order and had summar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
