9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s inordinate delay in payment to the assessee which requires payment of compensation cannot be accepted. As per provisions of section 244A of the Act, the assessee is entitled only interest on income tax refund due to the assessee upto the date of payment of such refund - there is no provision in the Act to pay compensation to the assessee for certain delay in payment of interest, more particularly, such delay is on account of technical reasons. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in arguments taken by the assessee in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT[ 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] and also the decision in the case of CIT VS. Narendra Dosh [ 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principles of Law Justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a sum of ₹ 26,60,383/- the money belonging to the Assessee - was wrongly withheld by the Department for a period of 6 years and 4 months and hence the Assessee should be compensated for the same in the form of interest. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed, the following two decisions of the Apex Court brought to his notice, which are squarely on the same issue and identical on facts as that of the Assessee: (copies attached) a. Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC) and b. CIT v. Narendra Doshi [20021 254 ITR .06(SC), in which the H ble Apex Court has approved the decisions of the H ble Guj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of interest and finally, the Assessing Officer has passed order dated 15.03.2018 and determined interest payable at ₹ 26,60,383/-. 4. The assessee has challenged order passed by the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) and contended that the Assessing Officer has not paid compensation on interest due to the assessee upto 03.11.2011 amounting to ₹ 26,60,383/- for unlawful retention of money for a period of 6 years and 4 months and in light of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts rejected arguments taken by the assessee and dismissed appeal by holding that altho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14) 42 taxmann.com 1 (SC) submitted that subsequent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only clarificatory in nature and thus, it has not overruled its earlier decision in the case of M/s.Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (supra). Therefore, as per settled principles of law in the case of M/s.Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT(supra), the Assessing Officer ought to have paid interest on interest to the assessee for the period from 03.11.2011 to 15.03.2018, when he had given interest due to the assessee u/s.244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that there is no provision in the Act u/s.244A to pay interest on interest and as per said provision, the assessee is entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (supra), if we consider facts of the present case, we ourselves do not agree with arguments taken by the learned AR for the assessee for simple reason that although, there is a delay in payment of interest due to the assessee, as per provisions of section 244A of the Act, but fact remains that the assessee was unable to justify its case of unlawful retention of money belongs to the assessee by the department for decades. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (supra), has considered payment of compensation to the assessee for delay in payment of interest, after considering fact that revenue without any valid reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (supra) and also the decision in the case of CIT VS. Narendra Dosh (2002) 254 ITR 606(SC). 9. Be that as it may, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Syndicate Bank in ITA No.582 of 2013 dated 07.10.2020 has considered identical issue and after considering decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs CIT (supra) observed that although, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very clearly held that revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount of interest while deciding issue, but fact remains that in the said case there was inordinate delay of 17 years and under those facts, it was held that the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
