9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual date of receipt of the refund by the assessee, also renders this issue to be a contentious issue, which requires long-drawn process of reasoning and arguments from both the sides. The Hon ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v/s Volkart Brothers, [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that for initiating proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The point on which rectification under section 154 of the Act was done by the Assessing Officer in the present case is capable of divergent views and since, this issue is not alleged to have been settled by any decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, we are of the considered view that the present case clearly falls beyond the ambit of the expression mistake apparent from the record , and thus, the rectification order dated 14/03/2017 passed under section 154 of the Act is set aside. As a result, ground Nos. 1.1 and 1.2 raised in assessee s appeal are allowed. - ITA No.807/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 26-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 291). The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that even if the date of grant of refund is considered as 31 March 2014 i.e. the date of order under section 154, the period from 31 March 2014 to 27 February 2015 will be 11 months. 3. Short grant of credit for taxes of Rs. 24,77,010 3.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant credit for taxes deducted on income from foreign centres amounting to Rs. 24,77,010. . 3.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating this issue on the basis that this issue is not emanating from the rectification order under consideration. 3.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessing officer in the order dated 14 March 2017 under section 154 has himself mentioned to give credit for taxes and charge interest as per rule. Therefore, the issue arises out of the said order since appropriate credit for taxes is not given in the said order. 4. Short grant of interest under section 244A 4.1. The learned ACIT erred in not directing the assessing officer to recompute interest under section 244A and grant additional interest of Rs. 2,97,241. 4.2. The learned CIT(A) erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of grant of refund or from the date of receipt of cheque of refund, is a debatable issue and thus same cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record and accordingly, is outside the purview of the provisions of section 154 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer vide rectification order has levied interest under section 234D from the date of order determining the refund i.e. 31/03/2014 as against the actual date of grant of refund vide cheque i.e. 01/04/2014. The assessee submitted that the refund was granted only on 01/04/2014 i.e. when the cheque was received and, therefore, no interest under section 234D should be levied for March, 2014. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 03/12/2018 held that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 234D of the Act and the claim made by any assessee contrary to the provisions of the Act, which is otherwise clear and unambiguous, would not make the issue debatable. Accordingly, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative ( learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned AR contended that the interest u/s 234D should have been charged from 07.12.2004, being the date on which it actually received the interest instead of 29.10.2004, being the date on which refund was granted. In this context section 234D(1) is relevant, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:- 234D(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, where any refund is granted to the assessee under sub-section (1) of section 143, and (a) no refund is due on regular assessment; or (b) the amount refunded under sub-section (1) of section 143 exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of [one-half] per cent on the whole or the excess amount so refunded, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the date of grant of refund to the date of such regular assessment. 18. This section talks of interest on excess refund. The dates from and up to which such interest is to be charged have been set out at the end of the provision being from the date of grant of refund to the date of such regular assessment . The dispute before us rotates only around the date fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; should be read as 'receipt', then in all cases of awarding interest, the Department will have to issue refund vouchers twice, viz., firstly up to the date of issuance of refund voucher and secondly, from such date to the date on which the assessee came in seisin of the money. This is clearly neither the intention nor the prescription of the provision. 20. It is of paramount importance to note that interest on refund is only a statutory right, which can be regulated strictly as per the prescribed provisions. There can be no question of granting any interest on refund de hors the relevant provisions in the Act. We want to accentuate on the proviso to section 244A(1)(a) which states that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined, inter alia under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment. Thus, if the amount of refund falls short of such percentage, the assessee cannot claim interest as a matter of right. This lead us to the logical conclusion that the question of grant of refund u/s 244A and the ex consequenti charging of interest on refund u/s 234D can be determined strictly as per the statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otably, the only issue in dispute is the period for which assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A of the Act. According to the assessee, the CIT(A) erred in granting interest upto the date of issuance of refund voucher, i.e. 29.3.2010 whereas as per the assessee, it is entitled to interest upto April, 2010 (i.e. upto the date of receipt of refund voucher on 6.4.2010). In this context, we find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Limited, 191 ITR 626 (Bom) has held that assessee is entitled to interest upto the date of receipt of the refund order. Similarly, our coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Novartis India Limited, ITA No. 1249/Mum/2010 dated 18.3.2011 has decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee by referring to an unreported judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Citi Bank vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 dated 17.7.2003, wherein the claim of the assessee for interest was upheld upto the date when the Pay Order is actually received by the assessee pursuant to the order sanctioning the refund . Therefore, following the aforesaid precedents, in our view, the assessee is justified in seeking interest u/s 244A of the Act upt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
