9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... USTRIES LTD. VERSUS DCIT CEN CIR 1 (4) , MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA) [ 2021 (2) TMI 526 - ITAT MUMBAI] AND UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS ACIT LTU, MUMBAI [ 2016 (8) TMI 688 - ITAT MUMBAI] The present case is not a case where interest on interest due was claimed by the assessee. The issue arising in the present case is regarding correct computation of refund. As per the Revenue, while computing the refund and interest thereon under section 244A of the Act, the refund already granted to the assessee should be adjusted against the tax component. However, as per the assessee, the refund already granted to the assessee should be first adjusted against the interest component and balance, if any, towards the tax component of the refund due. We fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogy results into awarding interest on interest which has been clearly disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Gujrat Fluoro Chemicals (358 ITR 291). 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in narrating a hypothetical situation of granting of refund in his order to arrive at the final conclusion without realizing that such an hypothesis has never arrived as a matter of fact. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to arrive at a conclusion solely on the basis of some hypothesis which is not at all correct. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the refund already granted to the assessee should be adjusted only against the tax component and interest under section 244A of the Act should be accordingly computed. 7. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the direction of learned CIT(A) is in consonance with various decisions of the Co ordinate Bench of Tribunal, wherein this issue has been decided in favour of the tax payer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) was considering the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 280 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of refund due to the assessee. Thus, the law is silent on this issue. Under these circumstances, fairness and justice remands that same principle should be applied while granting the refund as has been applied while collecting amount of tax. The revenue is not expected to follow double standards while dealing with the tax payers. The fundamental principle of fiscal legislation in any civilized society should be that the state should treat its citizens (i.e. tax payers in this case) with the same respect, honesty and fairness as it expects from its citizens. It is further noted by us that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already decided this issue in clear words which has been followed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst tax paid. Accordingly, unpaid amount is the tax component and therefore, the assessee would be entitled for claiming interest on the tax component remaining unpaid. In our considered opinion, the same would not tantamount to interest on interest as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 on his order. Similarly, the refund granted to the assessee in July 2016 is to be adjusted against the correct interest payable on the tax amount remaining unpaid and balance towards tax component. We find that this issue is already settled in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of this Tribunal:- a. Decision in the case of Union Bank of India v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 348/162 ITD 142 (Mum.). b. Decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
