Dr.R.P.Patel, Kottayam V. The ACIT, Kottayam

ITA 114/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77469 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K I JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 244A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND CHANDRA POOJ ARI, AM I.T.A. NO 114/COCH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1990-91 DR. R.P. PATEL, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. [PAN: AEVPP 8606G] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.I. JOHN, CA ASSESSEE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/07/2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV DATED 23/01/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. 2. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE NON- GRANTING OF INTEREST ON INTEREST ON REFUND DUE TO T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A THREE MEMBER JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI, 254 ITR 606 (SC). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BY ORDER DA TED 10-07-2003 A SUM OF RS. 3,97,399/- WAS DETERMINED AS REFUND DUE. THE REFUND WAS PROPOSED TO BE ADJUSTED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AS PER SECTION 245. OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL WAS FILED. TAX IN THE SU M OF RS.1,18,092/- I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 2 WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE REFUND BASED ON A RECTIFICATI ON ORDER OF MARCH, 2002. BUT THE RECTIFICATION ORDER WAS CANCELLED BY CIT(A) AND EFFECT WAS GIVEN TO ORDER OF CIT(A) BY PROCEEDINGS DATED 30-12 -2004. THE ADDITIONAL LEVY OF RS. 1,18,092/- WAS CANCELLED. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE POSITION THEREFORE IS THAT THE REFUND DUE IS RS. 3,58,726/- WITH INTEREST. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST APPELLATE ORDER HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON RECEI PT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION TO RECTIFY THE ORDER AND ISSUE THE REFUND AS PER LETTER NO. 1330/2009. THE ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER BY ORDER U/S. 154 DATED 19-03-2010 HAS COMPUTED THE RE FUND BASED ON THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30-12-2004 BY TAKING THE REFUND D UE AS RS. 1,18,092/-. THE DEMAND OF RS. 1,18,092/- WAS THUS RAISED U/S. 154 DATED 28-03-2002 AND THIS AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED FROM REFUND OF RS. 3,58,726/- ON 10-07-2003. THIS DEMAND WAS SUBSEQUE NTLY REDUCED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). AS PER ORDER U/S. 154 DAT ED 19-03-2010, THE DEMAND OF RS. 1,18,092/- WAS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESS EE ALONGWITH INTEREST U/S. 244A WITH EFFECT FROM 01-01-1999 TO 1 9-03-2010. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTEREST U/S. 2 44A WAS ELIGIBLE ONLY FROM 01-04-2002 TO 19-03-2010. BEING SO, EXCESS IN TEREST FOR A PERIOD FROM 01-01-1999 TO MARCH, 2002 AMOUNTING TO RS. 43, 070/- WAS WITHDRAWN VIDE ORDER U/S. 154 DATED 02-06-2011. A GAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO REFUND AND ALSO INTEREST ON INTEREST IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA D OSHI, 254 ITR 606 (SC) AND THE ORDER OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, 106 ITD 308. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE RE IS NO LEVIABLE DEMAND PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 AN D HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFUND THE AMOUNT WITH INTERES T AFTER VERIFYING FROM I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 3 THE RECORD THAT SUCH REFUND HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, HE OBSERVED THAT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 280 IT R 643 (SC), THERE WAS A DECISION OF THREE-MEMBER BENCH OF SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS (2013) 358 ITR 291 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ONLY INT EREST UNDER THE STATUTE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST IS PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATES TO T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST SOLELY PURSUANT TO THE 3 MEMBER JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N ARENDRA DOSHI REPORTED IN 254 ITR 606 (SC) AS EVIDENCED BY APPLIC ATION AND COMPUTATION. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM O F REFUND OF TAX WITH INTEREST AND INTEREST ON INTEREST AROSE PURSUANT TO CERTIFICATE UNDER THE SAMADHAN SCHEME DATED 16-07-1999. SO THE INTEREST CLAIM IS PENDING FOR NEARLY 15 YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR THERE WAS NO CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION BASED ON THE JUDGMENT IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 280 ITR 643. THE JUDGMENT IN 254 ITR 606 WAS FOLLO WED BY THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN D.C.I. VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVAN CORE AS REPORTED IN (2007) 106 ITD 308. THIS IS FINAL AS NO APPEAL APP EARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SO THE LD. AR CONTENDED T HAT THE LIMITED ISSUE IS WHETHER JUDGMENT IN 254 ITR 606 (SUPRA) IS APPLI CABLE, AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL AND JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS. 6. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER DATED 10- 07-2003, THE SUM OF RS. 3,58,726/- WAS RECOVERED FR OM BANK OF BARODA INVOKING SECTION 226 ON 30-12-1998 WHICH IS THE AMO UNT REFUNDABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF REALIZATION NAMELY 30 -12-1998. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 4 7. THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THAT RS.3,58,7326/- WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR 1990-91. BUT THE DEMAND WAS REDUCED TO NIL UNDER KVSS AND HENCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT HAS TO BE REFUNDED. 8. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: CIT VS. GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS IN (358 ITR 291) W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: THE JUDGMENT IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD. 2809 ITR 643 (SC) RELATES TO AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR INORDINATE DELAY IN PAYING INTEREST ON THE REFUND AMOUNT BUT IT DID NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT LAW. RE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IT IS HELD THAT IT IS CLAR IFIED THAT IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER TH E STATUTE WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE QUESTION REFERRED IN T HE ABOVE JUDGMENT IS DOUBTING THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE 2 MEMB ER JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS. THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IN THIS CASE IS, WHETHER INTEREST IS PAYABLE BY THE REVENUE TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE AGGREGATE OF INSTALMENTS OF ADVANCE TAX OF TDS PAID EXCEEDS THE ASSESSED TAX? HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS HELD IN SANDVIK CASE THAT THE COURT CONSIDERED ONLY THE ISSUE OF COMPENSATION FOR PREJUDICE CAUSED AND DIRECTED TO PAY COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST ON INTEREST. AFTER G IVING THE SAID FINDING, NEW SECTION 244A WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE AND WHEN THIS WAS SO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE, IT WAS ONLY CLARIFIED THAT I T IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE STATUTE BE CLAIMED AND NO OT HER INTEREST ON SUCH I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 5 STATUTORY INTEREST. WITH THIS CLARIFICATION, THE A PEX COURT HAS REFERRED BACK THE ISSUE TO TWO MEMBER BENCH TO CONSIDER THE CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE APEX COURT 3 MEMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DO SHI, 254 ITR 606 (SC) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE 3 MEMBER BENCH. SO THE ISSUE IS STILL KEPT OPEN. 10. THE LD. AR REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD., 280 ITR 643 (SC), SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION RELATES TO COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSME NT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE SAID APPEALS ARE THE 4 YEARS 1977-78, 1978-7 9, 1981-82 AND 1982-83. SO THE ISSUE THERE WAS THE IMPACT OF SECT ION 214 OR SECTION 244 WHICH SECTION PROVIDED FOR INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE SAID SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: INTEREST PAYABLE BY GOVERNMENT:- THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT FIFTEEN PER CENT PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE AGGREGATE SUM OF ANY INSTALMENTS OF ADVANCE TAX PAID DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THEY ARE PAYABLE UNDER SECT IONS 207 TO 213 EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSED TAX, FROM THE1ST DAY OF APRIL NEXT FOLLOWING THE SAID FI NANCIAL YEAR TO THE DATE OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE DATE PF THE REGULAR ASSESSMEN T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR, AND WHERE ANY SUCH INSTALMENT IS PA ID AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, DURING WHIC H IT IS PAYABLE BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 213, INTEREST AS AFORESAID SHALL ALSO BE PAYABLE ON THAT INSTALMENT FROM THE DATE OF ITS PAYMENT TO THE DATE OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 6 11. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 214 WH ICH DEALS WITH ONLY EXCESS ADVANCE TAX PAID OVER THE ASSESSED TAX FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL FOLLOWING THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE DATE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 240 DEALS WITH IN TEREST PAYABLE WITHOUT MAKING A CLAIM. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE T HERE IS NO ADVANCE TAX PAYMENT RESULTING IN REFUND ON ASSESSMENT. THE LEG ISLATURE INSERTED SECTION 244A OF THE IT ACT ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 1989 WHICH PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS UNDER VARIOUS CONT INGENCIES. THE SAID SECTION AS RELEVANT READS AS FOLLOWS: INTEREST ON REFUNDS WHERE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS ACT, HE SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, IN ADDITION TO THE SAID AMOUNT, SIMPLE INTEREST THEREON CALCULATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY:- (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND HALF PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRISED IN THE PERIOD OR PERIODS FROM THE DATE OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DATES OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX OR PENALTY TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED. (CLAUSE (A) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E) (ONE AND ONE HALF PERCENT WAS THE RATE BEFORE 01-10-1991 ) 12. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR ONLY THE AMENDED SECTIO N 244A WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-89 ALONE IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. CITED SUPRA AND THE ISSUE IS DEALT WITH. THE SAID DECISION REFERS TO THE BOARD CIRCULAR, THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NARENDRA DOSHI AND SANDVIK ASIA LTD. AND GAVE A CLEAR FINDING AS U NDER: I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 7 AS FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244A ARE CONCERNED, THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORDS WHERE THE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS ACT. IT MEANS THAT REFUND DOES NOT ONLY CONSIST TAX REFUNDABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO INTEREST DUE ON THE SAID TAX MUST CAREFULLY TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE DECISION 13. LACHMAN DAS BHATIA HINGWALA (P) LTD. VS. ACI T (237 CTR 117) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: A DECISION IS ONLY AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY DECIDES AND IT IS THE RATIO DECIDENDI WHICH HAS THE BINDING EFFECT; IT CANNOT BE MECHANICALLY APPLIED AS A PRECEDENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IN THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND. 14. CIT VS. TRAVANCORE TITANIC PRODUCTS (183 CTR 473) (KER.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: EVEN IF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE EARLIER CASE IS WRONG, A BENCH OF CO-ORDINATE JURISDICTION HAS ORDINARILY TO FOLLOW IT, UNLESS IT DOUBTS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID DECISION AND REFERS THE MATTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL. 15. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF H ARALAL HARENDRALAL ROY ESTATES LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS AS REPORTED IN [(340 ITR 69 (CAL.)] WHEREIN IT CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI 254 ITR 606 AND HELD AS UNDER: NORMALLY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ENUNCIATING A PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS STAGE OF PENDENCY I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 8 BECAUSE IT IS ASSUMED THAT WHAT IS ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IS IN FACT, THE LAW FROM INCEPTION. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI (2002) 254 ITR 606 IS THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON INTEREST ON INTERPRETATION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS MISCONCEPTION ABOUT INTEREST. INTEREST IS NOT A PENALTY OR PUNISHMENT AT ALL, BUT IT IS THE NORMAL ACCRETION ON CAPITAL. 16. CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. REPORTED IN 310 ITR 341 (M.P.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- IN CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI (2002) 254 ITR 606 (SC), A THREE-JUDGE BENCH OF THE APEX COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT WHERE INTEREST ON INTEREST WAS GRANTED. AS ALREADY NOTICED IN PARAGRAPH SUPRA, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN NEEDLE INDUSTRIES {PVT. LTD.S CASE 91998) 233 ITR 370, HAS ALSO INTERPRETED THE PHRASE ANY AMOUNT IN THE SAME MANNER WHEN CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH ALSO USES THE SAME PHRASE IN THE CONTEXT TO INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE REVENUE. IN EXPRESS TERMS THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION REFERRED NOT ONLY TO THE TAX BUT ALSO TO INTEREST. THE COURT AGREED WITH A SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMBAT ECHUKUTTY MENON (1988) 173 ITR 581. BOTH THESE WERE CASES WHERE THE COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER FURTHER INTEREST WAS PAYABLE BY THE REVENUE ON INTEREST WHICH HAD TO BE REPAID TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S. 244 AND/OR SECTION 244A OF THE ACT I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 9 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION. 17. THE 3 MEMBER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC) (DATED 03-12-2009) BY AFFIRMING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HELD AS UNDER:- REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THE INTEREST COMPONENT PARTOOK OF THE CHARACTER OF AMOUNT DUE UNDER SECTION 244A AND BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF RS.45,73,528/- WHICH WAS NOT PAID FOR 57 MONTHS AFTER THAT AMOUNT BECAME PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST FOR 57 MONTHS ON RS. 45,73,528/-. SO THE ISSUE STANDS CONCLUDED. 18. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION VS. CIT R EPORTED IN 263 CTR (DEL.) 18 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 244A ARE ANY AMOUNT AND SAID AMOUNT WORDS ARE, THEREFORE, MUCH WIDER AND BROADER THAN THE TAX AMOUNT WHICH IS TO BE REFUNDED. WORDS ANY AMOUNT WOULD INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE INTEREST ELEMENT, WHICH HAS ACCRUED AND IS PAYABLE ON THE DATE OF THE REFUND. THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT USED THE WORDS TAX PAID OR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAX PAID. THE WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 244A ARE ANY AMOUNT AND SAID AMOUNT. THE WORDS ARE THEREFORE, MUCH WIDER AND BROADER THAN THE TAX AMOUNT, WHICH IS TO BE REFUNDED. THE WORDS ANY AMOUNT WOULD INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT THE INTEREST ELEMENT, WHICH HAS ACCRUED AND IS PAYABLE ON THE DATE OF THE REFUND. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 10 19. HE RELIED ON CIRCULAR NO. 549 DATED 31-10-198 9 (182 ITR STATUTE 1) IS THE EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PROVISIONS OF DIRECT T AX LAWS (AMENDMENT ACT 1987) AS AMENDED BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT ACT 1989) WHICH DEALS WITH THE AMENDED SECTION 244A. THIS CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AMENDED RULE 119A FROM 13-09 -1989 IN CLAUSE (C) PROVIDES FOR INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT PRO VIDER FOR CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON TAX, PENALTY OR OTHER SUM IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS TO BE CALCULATED. SO THE WORDS OTHER SUM COVERS INT EREST ON INTEREST. 20. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CA THOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 343 ITR 270 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER:- CIRCULARS CAN BE ISSUED BY THE BOARD TO EXPLAIN OR TONE DOWN THE RIGOURS OF LAW AND TO ENSURE FAIR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISIONS. THESE CIRCULARS HAV E THE FORCE OF LAW ANDS ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TA X AUTHORITIES, THOUGH THEY CANNOT BE ENFORCED ADVERSELY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NORMALLY, THESE CIRCULARS CANNOT BE IGNORED. A CIRCULAR MAY NOT OVERRIDE OR DETRACT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT IT CAN SEEK TO MITIGATE THE RIGOUR OF A PARTICU LAR PROVISIONS FOR THE BENEFIT O THE ASSESSEE IN CERTAI N SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES SO LONG AS THE CIRCULAR IS IN FORCE, IT AIDS THE UNIFORM AND PROPER ADMINISTRATIO N AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 21. FURTHER HE RELIED ON; JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF TAMIL NAD U VS. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. (2011) 2 KLT SN 82 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THA T: CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE REVENUE ARE BINDING ON TH E DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND THEY CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REPUDIATE THE SAME ON THE PLEA THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR IT MITIGATES THE RIGOUR OF THE LAW. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 11 22. HE RELIED ON THE 3 MEMBER BENCH OF THE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KULU VALLEY TRANSPORT CO. P. LTD.) AS REPORTED IN 77 ITR 518 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : EVEN IF TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE THE VIEW WHICH IS FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ACCEPTED WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISION OF TAXING STATUTE. 23. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDEEP KUMAR B AFNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER (2014) 2 KHC SN 23 AT 41, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS OFTEN ENCOUNTERED IN HIGH COURTS THAT TWO OR MORE MUTUALLY IRRECONCILABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPRE ME COURT ARE CITED AT THE BAR. WE THINK THAT THE INVI OLABLE RECOURSES IS TO APPLY THE EARLIEST VIEW AS THE SUCCEEDING ONES WOULD FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF PER INCURIAM. 24. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE DECISION IN T HE NARENDRA DOSHI CASE BY 3 MEMBER BENCH IS DATED 26-07-2001. BUT THE 3 MEMBER BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS IS DATED 18-09-201 3. SO BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT FLUORO C HEMICALS FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF PER INCURIAM. MOREOVER THE JUDGMENT IS NOT RELEVANT, AND THERE IS NO IRRECOVERABLE DECISIONS AFTER INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 244A. 25. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF WRITTE N ARGUMENTS FILED RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER JUDGME NTS THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO PASS A REASONED ORDER. HE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. VS. MASOOD AHME D KHAN IN (2010) 9 SCC 496 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ALL THESE DECISIONS SERVE ONE COMMON PURPOSE WHIC H IS TO DEMONSTRATE BY REASON THAT THE RELEVANT FACTORS HAVE I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 12 BEEN OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR SUSTAINING LITIGANTS FAITH IN THE JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM; (J) INSISTENCE ON REASON IS A REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF DECISIONS MUST BE COGENT, CLEAR AND SUCCINCT. A PRETENCE OF REASONS OR RUBB ER STAMP REASONS IS NOT TO BE EQUATED WITH A VALID DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. REFERRING TO 359 ITR 314. 26. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE LTD. VS.STATE (2013) 4 KLT SN 143 WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: REASON WOULD MEAN A JUSTIFYING REASON, OR MORE SIM PLY A JUSTIFICATION FOR A DECISION IS A CONSIDERATION, IN A NON- ARBITRARY WAYS IN FAVOUR OF MAKING OR ACCEPTING THA T DECISION. IF THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF A DECISION, SUCH A DECISION IS WITHOUT ANY REASON OR JUSTIFYING REASON. 27. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER U/S. 154 DATED 19/3/2010 HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE LD CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 23/01/2014. TECHNICALLY, THE APPE AL HAS BEEN PARTIALLY ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO LEVI ABLE DEMAND PERTAINING TO A.Y. 1990-91. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED T O REFUND THE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AFTER VERIFYING FROM THE RECORD THAT SUCH REFUND HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED IN THE PAST. ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON INTERES T WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 23/01/2014. IN THI S REGARD, THE LD. CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE LARGER BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLURO CHEMICALS, WHEREI N IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH CAN BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 13 ON PERUSAL OF THE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 1990-91, THE LD. DR OBSERVED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO BRUSH ASIDE THE SAID OBSERVATION STATING THAT THE ISSUE IS STIL LKEPT OPEN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF SU PREME COURT IN SLP NO. 11406 OF 2008 (DATED 18/09/2013) IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 8. FURTHER IS IT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE LEGISLATURE BY THE ACT NO. 45 OF 1988 (W.E.F. 1/4/8 9) HAS INSERTED SEC 244A TO THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS UNDER VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES. WE CLARIFY THAT IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED F OR UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. 9. WITH THE AFORE CLARIFICATIONS WE NOW REFER BACK ALL THE MATTERS BEFORE THE TWO JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT TO CONSIDER EACH CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND TAKE AN APPROPRIATE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THUS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYI NG TO MISLEAD THE TRIBUNAL INTO BELIEVING THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST IS KEPT OPEN WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. THE THREE-MEMBER BENCH HAS AMPLY CLARIFIED THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY INTEREST ON THE STAT UTORY INTEREST. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WITH THIS CLARIFICATION, THEI R LORDSHIPS HAD REFERRED ALL THE MATTERS BEFORE THE TWO-JUDGE BENCH OF THE C OURT TO CONSIDER EACH CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DEC ISIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CAN BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST HAS BEEN REFERRED B ACK TO THE TWO-JUDGE BENCH. IT WOULD BE HIGHLY ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT A THREE-MEMBER BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT WOULD CLARIFY AN ISSUE A ND THEN REFER BACK THAT SAME ISSUE TO A TWO-MEMBER BENCH. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS AMPLE CLARIFICATION THAT THERE IS NO S COPE FOR ANY INTEREST FOR INTEREST, ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS R EJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 14 ABOVE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. DR PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE KINDLY UPHELD. 28. IN THIS CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS INTE REST ON INTEREST ON REFUND WHICH IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE EXCESS INTEREST OF RS. 43,017/- GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED COVERING THE PERIOD FROM 01-01-1999 TO MARCH, 2002. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED THE M ATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO C LAIMED INTEREST ON INTEREST. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R EFUND THE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AFTER VERIFYING FROM THE RECORD WHETHER SU CH REFUND HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INTEREST ON INTEREST WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CIT( A). AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST ON REFUND, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 29. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS WITH REGARD TO INTEREST ON INTEREST ON REFUND AND THE LD. AR PLACED MUCH RELIA NCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DO SHI 254 ITR 606 (SC). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT. LATER, THE SUPREME COUR T HELD AS FOLLOWS:- HELD, THAT, SINCE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WHOSE DE CISION THE HIGH COURT HAD AFFIRMED, HAD RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN D.J. WORKS VS. DEPUTY CIT (1992) 195 ITR 227, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REVENUE WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON ADVANCE TAX WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE PAID TO THE ASSESS EE BUT HAS UNJUSTIFIABLY FAILED TO DO SO, AND THAT DEC ISION I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 15 WAS FOLLOWED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CHIMANLAL S. PATEL VS. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 419, AND THE DEPARTMEN T HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THOSE TWO DECISIONS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE WA S BOUND BY THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN THEREIN. 30. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FEEL THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT COMING T O THE AID OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM INTEREST ON INTEREST UNDER THE GIVEN SITUATION. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL AT HANDS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT EXCESS TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS R EFUNDED ALONGWITH THE INTEREST U/S. 244A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE APPEAL GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA D BECOME ENTITLED AND REFUND WAS PAID IN ENTIRETY ALONGWITH INTEREST. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 240, 243 AND 244 ARE REP RODUCED BELOW:- 240. REFUND ON APPEAL, ETC. WHERE, AS A RESULT O F ANY ORDER PASS DIN APPEAL OR OTHER PROCEEDING UNDER TH IS ACT, REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVID ED IN THIS ACT, REFUND THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HIS HAVING TO MAKE ANY CLAIM IN THAT BEHALF: PROVIDED THAT WHERE, BY THE ORDER AFORESAID, - (A) AN ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE OR CANCELLED AND AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IS DIRECTED TO BE MADE, THE REFUND , IF ANY, SHALL BECOME DUE ONLY ON THE MAKING OF SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENT; (B) THE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED, THE REFUND SHALL BE COME DUE ONLY OF THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF THE TAX PAID IN EXCE SS OF THE TAX CHARGEABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 16 243. INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUNDS.- (1) IF THE INCO ME-TAX OFFICER DOES NOT GRANT THE REFUND. (A) IN ANY CASE WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT CONSIST SOLELY OF INCOME FROM INTEREST ON SECUR ITIES OR DIVIDENDS, WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE TOTAL INCOME IS DETERMINED UNDER THIS ACT , AND (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE END OF MONTH IN WHICH THE CLAIM FOR REFUND IS MADE UNDER T HIS CHAPTER. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PAY THE ASSESSEE SI MPLE INTEREST AT TWELVE PER CENT, PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUN T DIRECTED TO BE REFUNDED FROM THE DATE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AFORESAID TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE REFUND. EXPLANATION . IF THE DELAY IN GRANTING THE REFUND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AFORESAID IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE , WHETHER WHOLLY OR IN PART, THE PERIOD OF THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PERI OD FOR WHICH INTEREST IS PAYABLE. (2) WHERE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE PERIOD TO B E EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL. 244. INTEREST ON REFUND WHERE NO CLAIM IS NEEDED. (1) WHERE A REFUND IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 240 AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DOES NOT GRANT THE REFUND WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH ORDER IS PA SSED, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PAY TO THE ASSESSEE SIMPLE INTEREST AT TWELVE PER CENT PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT OF REFUN D DUE FROM THE DATE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EXPIRY OF T HE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AFORESAID TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED. (1A) WHERE THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE REFUND REFE RRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT OF ANY AMOUNT HAVING BEEN PAID BY HIM AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 1975, IN PURSUANCE OF ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR PE NALTY AND I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 17 SUCH AMOUNT OR ANY PART THEREOF HAVING BEEN FOUND I N APPEAL OR OTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT WHICH SUCH ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY AS TAX OR PENALTY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, UNDER THIS ACT, THE CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT SHALL PAY TO SUCH ASSESSEE SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE R ATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) ON THE AMOUNT SO FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AMOUNT SO FOUND TO BE IN EX CESS WAS PAID IN INSTALLMENTS, SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE PAYABL E ON THE AMOUNT OF EACH SUCH INSTALLMENT OR ANY PART OF SUCH INSTALLMENT, WHICH WAS IN EXCESS, FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH INSTALLMENT WAS PAID TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUN D IS GRANTED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO INTEREST UNDER THE SUB-SEC TION SHALL BE PAYABLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MOTH FROM THE DATE O F THE PASSING OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL OR OTHER PROCEEDING: PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE ANY INTEREST IS PAYABLE TO ANY ASSESSEE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION, NO INTEREST UNDER SUB- SECTION(1) SHALL BE PAYABLE TO HIM IN RESPECT OF TH E AMOUNT SO FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS. (2) WHERE A REFUND IS WITHHELD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 241, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PAY INTEREST AT T HE AFORESAID RATE ON THE AMOUNT OF REFUND ULTIMATELY D ETERMINED TO BE DUE AS A RESULT OF THE APPEAL OR FURTHER PROC EEDING FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THREE MON THS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 241 IS PASSED TO THE DATE THE REFUND IS GRANTED. 31. AS PER SECTION 240 OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF TA X PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE REFUNDED IF SUCH REFUND BECOMES D UE AS A RESULT OF ANY ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL OR IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS. SECTION 243 DEALS WITH INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUNDS. SUCH AN IN TEREST BECOMES PAYABLE IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT REFUNDED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE TOTAL INCOME IS DETER MINED OR WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE CLAIM FOR THE I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 18 REFUND IS MADE UNDER THAT CHAPTER. INTEREST PAYABL E IS AT 12 PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AFORESAID TO THE DATE O F THE ORDER GRANTING THE REFUND. 32. NO DOUBT, WHEN THE TAX PAID IS MORE THAN WHAT I S DUE, AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS, ETC., MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND IN APPEAL WHEN THOSE ARE DELETED BY THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY, THE REFUND OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT IS TO BE MADE ALONG WITH INTER EST, AS ENVISAGED U/S. 243 OF THE ACT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THIS INTEREST IS NOT REFUNDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME ENTITLED TO THE INTEREST ON THE SAID INTEREST AS WELL. THAT WAS THE FACTUAL POSITION IN SANDVIK ASIA (2006) 280 ITR 643; (2006) 2 SCC 508. IN CONTRA-DISTINCTI ON, WHERE THE INTEREST IS PAID ALONG WITH THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS R EFUND, THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON INTEREST DOES NO T ARISE PRESENT CASES FALL UNDER THIS CATEGORY. 33. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WO ULD DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST FOR A PERIOD FROM 01-01-1999 TO 19-03-2010 AND ACCORDINGLY, HE GRANTED THE SAME. 34. INTEREST ON INTEREST IS NOT AT ALL THEE S UBJECT MATTER OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 154 OF THE I.T . ACT ON 02-06-2011. BEING SO, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N GRANTED INTEREST U/S. 244A OF THE I.T. ACT AS DUE TO HIM AND THE CAL CULATION OF THE INTEREST WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT WIDEN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 BY PUTTI NG VARIOUS DEBATABLE ISSUES. THE VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. A R IS OF NO RELEVANCE IN I.T.A. NO. 114/COCH/2014 19 VIEW OF THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS (SUPRA). BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. . PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 04-07 -2014. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 4 TH JULY, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. DR. R.P. PATEL, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, KOCH I, 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN