ITO, Hyderabad V. Smt Phoola Rani Gupta, Hyderabad

ITA 1048/HYD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6014 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1047/HYD/09 : ASSTT. YEAR 1994-95 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1) -V- LATE LEKHRAJ GUPTA, HYDERABAD. RE P. BY L/R SUBHASH GUPTA BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.51/HYD/09 ASST. Y EAR 1994-95 LATE LEKHRAJ GUPTA, REP. BY L/R SUBHASH GUPTA -V- INCOME-TAX OF FICER, WARD -3(1) BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA 1048/HYD/09 ASST . YEAR 1994-95 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1) -V- SMT. PHOOJA RANI GUPTA, HYDERABAD. BA NJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.52/HYD/09 : ASST. YEAR 199 4-95 SMT. PHOOLA RANI GUPTA, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. -V- INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS ASSESSEES BY : SRI D.V. ANJANEYULU 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND ANOT HER TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEP ARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-IV, HYDERABAD BOTH DATED 11-8- 2009 AND THEY ALL RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-9 5. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTI ONS, THESE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMBI NED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS O F APPEAL BEFORE US: I) THE CIT (A) IS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. II) THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. III) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DECISI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE REFUND OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 140A.' 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THEIR CRO SS OBJECTIONS:- '1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ORDER IS LEGALLY CORRECT BOTH I N LAW AND FACTS. 2. THE CIT (A) DIRECTING TO ALLOWING INTEREST U/S 244 A ON THE REFUND OF SELF ASST. TAX PAID U/S 140A BY PLACING THE RE LIANCE 3 ON THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD., V S. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD, ITR 254 PAGE 641 (MAD), AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.' 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN DHANVI TR ADING AND INVESTMENT P. LTD. (72 ITD 245), CALCUTTA ITAT IN TH E CASE OF HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD (74 ITD 309) (CAL), THE DECISION OF MUMB AI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GRINDWELL NORTON LTD. (285 ITR (AT) 13) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHOLAMA NDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. (294 ITR 438) (MAD) H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF T HE ACT ON THE REFUNDS IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEES DETERMINED VIDE MODIFI CATION ORDER DATED 6-3-2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE N O INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 244A BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON THE SAID REFUNDS, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW SUCH INTERESTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEES. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LIMIT ED VS. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THEIR LORD SHIPS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION BY AY OF INTEREST FOR THE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS LAWFULLY DUE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE WITHHELD WRONGLY AND CONTRARY TO LAW. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED (SUPR A), WE HOLD THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF 4 THE ASSESSEES AND THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. HENCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND REJECTED. 5. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE BY FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SA NDVIK ASIA LIMITED WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CROSS OBJECT IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE THEY ARE DI SMISSED AS SUCH. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES STAND DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-2-2010 SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 23-2- 2010. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD-3(1), 7TH FLOOR, B- BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. LATE LEKHRAJ GUPTA, REP. BY L/R SUBHASH GUPTA, ST . NO.4, AVENUE NO.7, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (A) IV, HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR