DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI V. AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 1201/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7381 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH K JOTWANI
• Keywords: Tangible material; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 1990-91) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-10, ROOM NO. 802, 8 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO ANNEXE BLDG., M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION CITI MALL, LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-53 . PAN: AAAFA3654J (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.P. MEENA (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH K. JOTWANI (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME TAX ACT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-37, MUM BAI DATED 14 TH NOVEMBER 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. THE APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER I N ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 245D(4) DATED 03.05.2011AND UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 14.11.2011. T HE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 220(2) AMOUNTING TO RS. 129,561,952/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FINAL ORDER O F HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION RECKONING THE DUE DATE W.E.F. 01.05.1993 , HOLDING ORDER BEING REFRAMED AFRESH VIDE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION DATED 03/05/2011 ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 2 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITSC WAS EQUATED WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INITIAL ORDER OF HON'BLE ITSC WAS SET ASIDE ONLY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND AS SUCH THE CASE CLEARLY FALLS UNDER PARA-2 OF BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 334 DATED 03/04/1982 WHEREIN I NTEREST U/S. 220(2) WAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DUE DATE RECKONED FR OM ORIGINAL DEMAND NOTICE AND WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX FINALLY DETERMINED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS (APROX.). THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS FINALIZED UN DER SECTION 143(3) ON 31.03.1993 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 4,01,97,683/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SU BSEQUENTLY, DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH ITS GROUP COMPANIES FILED APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 245D BE FORE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON 17.11.1994. THE SETTLEMEN T COMMISSION PASSED THE FINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D (4) ON 29.01.199 9, COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 55,34,393/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990- 91. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE REVENUE FILED W RIT PETITION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS SET-ASIDE BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07 .2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2191 OF 1999. THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE ORDER OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT DATED 28.07.2000 WAS SET-ASIDE AND THE CASE WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER D ATED 08.07.2009 SET- ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 3 ASIDE THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WITH A DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE AG AIN FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED B ACK TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH, VIDE ORDE R DATED 20.08.2010 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6827-6848 OF 2010. THEREFORE, INCO ME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED A FRESH ORDER ON 10.04.2011, COMP UTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS. 11,04,40,674/-. CONSEQUENT, UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN OR DER DATED 03.05.2011 FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 220(2) FOR RS. 129,561,952/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 FOR SEEKING THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2011. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154, VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 14.11.2011. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) , AND THE ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154, DATED 14.11.2014, TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED THEREON. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS FILE D THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSES SEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR FOR THE RE VENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SU BMITS THAT AS PER ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 4 CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (C BDT) I.E. CIRCULAR NO. 334, DATED 03.04.1982, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PA Y INTEREST W.E.F. 01.05.1993 ON THE INCOME ASSESSED BY INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COM MISSION IN ITS ORDER DATED 10.04.2011. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMIT S THAT PARA 2.2 OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 334, CATEGORICALLY MADE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS EITHER VARIED OR SET-ASIDE BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR RESTORED EITHER IN PART OR WHOLLY, THE INTEREST PAY ABLE UNDER SECTION 220(2) HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DUE DATE RECKO NED FROM ORIGINAL DEMAND NOTES AND REFERENCE TO THE TAX LIABILITY FIN ALLY DETERMINED. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE EMPHASIZED THAT DURING THE INTER VENING PERIOD, THERE WAS NO TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY OPERATIVE ORDER WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THIS PORTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMI SSION, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF BANGALORE TRIBU NAL IN J.P. NARAYANASWAMY VS ACIT [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 365 AND THE DECISION OF INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, (SPECIAL BENCH) I N HOME METAL & MINERAL CORPORATION [193 ITR 57 ITSC- (SB)]. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER O F INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS ONLY ORDER WHICH CREATED LIABILITY, T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE, WHEN THE SETTLEMEN T COMMISSIONER PASSED THE ORDER ON 10.04.2011. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 220(2) ATTRACT ONLY WHEN ANY D EMAND IS PENDING AGAINST ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 5 THE ASSESSEE. NO DEMAND ON ACCOUNT OF TAX LIABILITY WAS EVER PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT IN FACT THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN DCIT VS. VIJAY NAGAR CORPORATION IN ITA NO. 1176 , 1177/MUM/2013 DATED 23.05.2016, WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECID ED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICE CREATED LIABILI TY UNDER SECTION 220(2), HOWEVER, ON APPEAL THE LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST WA S DELETED BY LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. TR IBUNAL, THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS UPHELD. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT COPY OF THE DECISION OF V IJAY NAGAR CORPORATION IS ALREADY PLACED ON RECORD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE VAR IOUS DOCUMENTS AND THE ORDER OF SUPERIOR COURTS PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHILE PASSING ORDER UNDER SE CTION 245D(4) ON 10.04.2011, DIRECTED TO MAKE THE COMPUTATION OF INC OME AS PER ANNEXURE-2 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: NAME OF THE APPLICANT : AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATIO N, BOMBAY STATUS : COMPANY ASST. YEAR : 1990-91 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME 1. RETURNED INCOME RS. 397325 2. ADDITIONS AS PER THIS ORDER INCLUDING SOF RS. 1098 57956 3. ADD: DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES RS. 1853 93 CLAIMED IN P & L A/C ( AS PER ORDER U/S 245D(4) DT. 29.01.1999). ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 6 TOTAL INCOME RS. 110440674 SINCE THE DETAILS OF TAX PAYMENT ARE AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AO SHALL COMPUTE THE TAX PAYABLE INCLUDING SURCHARGE A ND INTEREST, IF ANY, AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR TAXES ALREADY PAID BY THE APPLICANT AND ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 245D(6) OF THE ACT. 6. IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE INTEREST UNDER SEC TION 220(2) FOR RS.12,95,61,952/- VIDE ORDER DATED 03.05.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 18.08.2011 FOR RECTIFICATION OF WORKING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2). THE APPLICATION O F ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 WAS REJECTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON 14.11.2011 . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATE D 03.05.2011AND 14.11.2011. ON THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS), THE APPEAL AGAINST THE WORKING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) WAS RE GISTERED BEING APPEAL NO. CIT(A) 37/I.T. NO. 313/DCCC-10/11-12 AND OTHER APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 WAS REGISTERED AS CIT(A) 37/I.T. NO. 415/DCCC-10/11-12. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) D ISMISSED THE APPEAL NO. CIT(A) 37/I.T. NO.313/DCCC-10/11-12, HOLDING TH AT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) IS NOT APPEALABLE AS PER SECTION 246A. HOWEVER, IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 IN AP PEAL NO. CIT(A) 37/I.T. NO.415/DCCC-10/11-12, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) DELETED/SET-ASIDE THE INTEREST CHARGED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC TION 220(2). 7. A CAREFUL READING OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 220 MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN CASE ANY DEMAND IS RAISED UNDER SECTION 156, THE ASSESSE E IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 7 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE, IN CASE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IN CASE FULL PERIOD OF 30 DA YS IS ALLOWED, WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH THE APPROVAL OF JOINT COMMISSIONER MAY DIRECT THE SUM SPECIFIED IN THE NO TICE SHALL BE PAID WITHIN PERIOD LESS THAN OF 30 DAYS. IN CASE ANY APPEAL OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING IS FILED OR INITIATED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SPECIFI ED IN THE NOTICE, THAN SUCH DEMAND SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE VALID TILL THE DISPOSA L OF THE APPEAL BY THE LAST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SUB-SECTION (2) MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 IS NOT PAID WITH IN PERIOD LIMITED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PA Y SIMPLE INTEREST AT ONE PERCENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF MONTH COMPRISED IN PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE END OF PERIO D MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THAT NO DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT WAS EVER PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE DEMAND WAS CREATED ONLY ON PASSING OF ORDER BY INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON 10.04.2011. THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT ANY DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 WAS EVER PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONDITION PRECEDENTS FOR INVOKING SUB-SECTION (2) IS NECESSAR Y. IN OTHER WORD, IF NO DEMAND IS SUBSISTING, NO LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) CAN ARISE. THE INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHILE M AKING COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE IT CLEAR TO COMPUTE THE TAX PAYABLE INC LUDING SURCHARGE AND ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 8 INTEREST, IF ANY, AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF THE TAX AL READY PAID. THERE IS NO EXPRESS ORDER OF INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR CHARG ING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2). WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES GR OUP CASE IN VIJAY NAGAR CORPORATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE I NTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 220(2). HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE LIABILITY OF INTEREST CREATED UNDER SECTION 220 (2) WAS DELETED/SET-ASIDE VIDE ORDER DATED 14.11.2012. THE REVENUE FILED APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DAT ED 14.11.2012 WAS UPHELD IN ITA NO. 1176, 1177/MUM/2013 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1991-92 & 1992-93 DATED 25.05.2016 IN DCIT VS VIJAYNAGAR CORP ORATION. WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST U/S.220(2) OF THE ACT WOULD BE CHARGEABLE FROM PASSING THE ORDER DATED 03.05.20 11 PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND THE INTEREST PRIOR THER ETO IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CHARGEABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) T OOK THE DATE 03 .05 .201 1 WHEN THE FRESH ORDER U/S.245D(4) WAS PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ASSESSING THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.81 ,92,874/- FOR A.Y.1 991-92 AND RS.79,21,543/- FOR A.Y. 1992-93. NO DOUBT THE EARLI ER ORDER PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER WAS UNDER LITIGATION. HOWEV ER THE FINAL ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER U/S. 2451 )(4) ON 31.12.1998 DETERMINING THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.21,91,030/ - FOR THE A.Y.1991- 92 AND RS.21,19,492/- FOR THE A.Y.1992-93. IT IS NO T UNDER DISPUTE THAT THE SAID TAX HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE D PERIOD AS ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 9 MENTIONED IN THE PARA NO.2.5.7 IN THE CIT ORDER. NO DOUBT WHEN THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THESE ORDERS THEN SUBSEQUE NTLY THE INTEREST IS LIABLE TO BE PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE LAW SETTLED IN [2012] 209 TAXMAN 456 / 23 HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 VS. CHIKA OVERSEAS (P.) LTD. AND CBDT CIRCU LAR NO.334, F. NO.44018181 DATED 03.04.1982 AND HON 'BLE SUPREME C OURT III VIKRANT TYRES LTD. 247 ITR 821 AND CARBON LTD. & ORS VS. [1 997 (6) SCC 479. THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE SAID AUTHORITY AS WELL AS CIR CULAR HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER CIT(A) THEREFOR E, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME. MOREOVER, APPARENTLY THE DEMAND WA S RAISED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER DATED 17.11.1994 U/S. 2451)(1) O F THE ACT AND IN PURSUANCE OF FINAL ORDER DATED 2451)(4) OF THE ACT DETERMININ G THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.21,91,030/- FOR THE A.Y.1991-92 AND RS.2 1,19,492/- FOR THE A.Y.1992-93 HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID WHICH IS NOT IN D ISPUTE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEMAND WAS RAISED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER DATED 0 3.05.2011 U/S 2451)(4) OF THE ACT AND THIS DEMAND WAS NOT IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS DEMAND WAS RAISED THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE P AYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NOT FROM THE PERIOD OF RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR I.E.1991- 92 AND 1992-93. NOTHING NEW MATERIAL BROUGHT BEFORE US TO WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE O RDER WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE NOWHERE PRODUCED ANY LAW BEFORE US, CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IN QUESTION. NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US WHICH MAY SPEAK ABOUT THE IN- GENUINENESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 10 ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQU IRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. 6.ACCORDINGLY BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION O F TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE IN VIJAY NAGAR CORPORATION (SUPRA), WE F IND THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF AS SESSEE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT, IF ANY APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN VIJAY NAGAR CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES LTD. VS ITO 247 ITR 821 HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY PAID TAX AS P ER DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156, BUT LATER GOT THE TAX REFUNDED PURSUAN T TO THE APPELLATE ORDER, AND LATER ON, THE TAX HAS BECOME DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT SETTING-ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE R EVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEMAND INTEREST IN REGARD TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS R EFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPELLATE ORDER, ESPECIALLY WHEN ASSESSEE HA S PROMPTLY SATISFIED THE DEMAND MADE BY REVENUE IN REGARD TO THE TAX ORIGINA LLY ASSESSED. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT NO TAX DEMAND WAS PENDING U NDER SECTION 156, PURSUANT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS N OT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW US THAT THE ASSESSEE EVER NOT PAI D THE TAX LIABILITY, IN TIME, FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CASE LAW CITE D BY LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. IN J.P. NARAYANSWAMY VS ACIT (SUPRA) THE ENTIRE TAX AS PER THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS ITA NO. 1201/MUM/2013- M/S AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION 11 NOT PAID IN FULL WITHIN TIME ALLOWED IN THE NOTICE. IN OM METALS MINERALS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) THERE WAS NO PAYMENT OF TAX DEMANDED I N THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156. THUS, FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES RELIED B Y LD DR ARE AT VARIANCE. AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT NO TAX DEMAND RAISED UNDE R SECTION 156 WAS PENDING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT APP EAL. HENCE, THE RATIO OF THE CASE LAW RELIED BY LD. AR ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER ELABORATE DISCUSSION OF FACT AND LAW, WHICH DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF APRIL 2018. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 27/04/2018 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. C