ACIT, CHENNAI V. Value Source Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1327/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96404 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB IRS
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 263; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325 & 1326/MDS/2015 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, BALANCE SHEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, CHENNAI 600 101. [PAN AAACI 1223] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. C. NARESH, C.A. *+&' ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SHAJI P. JACOB, IRS, ADDL. CIT ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2016 -.% ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.03.2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED SEVEN APPEALS AGAINST DIFF ERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI DATED 25.03 .2015 FOR THE ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 2 -: ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS PASSED U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE COMBI NED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERR ED IN INVOKING REVISIONARY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 26 3 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO GRANTING REFUND AND INTEREST ON TDS REFUNDED WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY DOCUMENTS AND EXCLUDE THE PERIOD OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE. 1.2. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ORDER OF AO WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE, SINCE THE TDS WAS REFUNDED BASED ON 'INDEMNITY BOND' IN RESPECT OF 'DEFECTIVE TDS' CERTIFICATES, AND IN ANY CASE THE APPELLANT COULD N OT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFECTS IN TDS CERTIFICATES IS SUED BY PAYEE ON WHOM DUTY IS CAST TO ISSUE VALID CERTIFICATE. HENCE TIME TAKEN TO CURE DEFECTS CANNO T BE CONSTRUED AS DELAY IN PROCEEDINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO T HE APPELLANT AND INTEREST WITHHELD. 1.3. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SI NCE MONEY DEPOSITED ON TDS MADE WAS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THAT THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE IN THE CASE OF CLERICAL MISTAKES ON THE CERTIFICATES, SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER OF RECTIFICATI ON OF ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 3 -: AO, BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF INDEMNITY BOND IS UNWARRANTED AND UNREASONABLE. 3. WE CONSIDER THE FACTS NARRATED IN ITA NO.1320/MDS /2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE BANK MADE A PETITION U/S.154 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT CREDIT OF TDS NOT ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT THOUGH TDS CERTIFICATE ARE FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE BANK WHILE CLAIMING TDS CREDIT AS PER RETURN OF INCOME F OUND THE TDS CERTIFICATES AS DEFECTIVE DUE TO TECHNICAL MISTAKES IN THE NATURE OF PAN NUMBER, TDS CHALLAN PARTICULARS, DATE OF DEPOSIT AN D NO RUBBER STAMP OF THE DEDUCTOR. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON VER IFICATION OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES AND SUPPORTING PAYMENTS COME TO A CO NCLUSION AS GENUINESS OF CLAIM AND TDS CERTIFICATE ARE ISSUED B Y BANKING INSTITUTIONS, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENT UN DERTAKING AND FURTHER ON SAMPLE CHECKING SATISFIED THAT THE RECE IPTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD.AO O N THE BASIS OF GENUINITY OF TRANSACTIONS AND INDEMNITY BOND SUBMIT TED BY THE BANK GRANTED REFUND OF TDS ALONGWITH INTEREST U/S.244A O F THE ACT BY RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.154 DATED 19.04.2013 AS UND ER:- ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 4 -: TDS CREDIT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 36,37,57,680/ - LESS TDS CREDIT GIVEN IN THE PREVIOUS ORDERS 22,15,22,032/ - BALAN CE TDS CREDIT TO BE GIVEN AS CLAIMED IN THE INDEMNITY BOND BY THE ASSESSEE 14,22,35,648 ADD INTEREST U/S.244A FROM APRIL - 01 - MARCH 13 11,24,21,352/ - REFUNDABLE 25,46,57,000/ - SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ISSUE D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE A CT DATED 28.11.2014 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10 .2001 AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 29.11.2002. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTED TDS CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF C22,15,22,032/- AS AGAINST TOTAL CREDIT OF C36,37,57,680/- IN RETUR N OF INCOME AND NO CREDIT WAS ALLOWED FOR DEFECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATES TO THE EXTENT OF C14,22,35,648/- AND ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASS ESSMENT U/S.143(3) DATED 31.03.2004. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASS ESSMENT, ASSESSEE BANK FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED AND PASSED ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT ON 1 9.04.2013 GRANTED TDS CLAIM BASED ON INDEMNITY BOND FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ALONGWITH INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. THE INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED IGNORING THE FACT OF DELAY IN FILING OF TDS CERTIFICATE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO PROPER VERIFICATION BY THE ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 5 -: ASSESSING OFFICER AND PROCEEDINGS ARE ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FILED EXPLANA TION BY LETTER DATED 13.12.2014 AND ALSO WRITTEN SUBMISSION S ON DEFECT IN TDS CERTIFICATES AND DELAY IN REFUND OF TAX. ON THE I SSUE OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED O N THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURT AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REFERRED IN THE ORDER AT PAGE 3 AS UNDER:- AS HAS BEEN HELD IN CLT V. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD ( 2012) 343 ITR 161, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM IS NOT BY ITSELF INDICATIVE OF T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING- OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HI S MIND ON THE ISSUE. ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE SEEN. THE CREDIT FOR TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IF THERE WERE ANY DEFECTS, THE SAME IS CURABLE AND NOT INCURABLE. ONCE THE DEFECTS WERE CURED, THE REFUND IS MADE ALONG WITH INTEREST. THIS IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION IN LAW AS TO GRANT OF CREDI T. WITHHOLDING TDS CREDIT ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS CAUSES HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. WE INVITE YOUR KIND ATTENTION THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT, DECIDED ON ITS OWN MOTION, ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS, (WRIT PETITION 2659 OF 2012 DATE D 14.03.2013) DIRECTED CBDT TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS MANDAMUS ISSUED BY IT. THE COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT, DENYING THE BENEFIT OF TDS BECAUSE OF THE FAULT OF THE DEDUCTOR, WHICH IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEDUCTEE CAUSES UNWARRANTED HARASSMENT AND INCONVENIENCE ETC. VIEWING IN THIS BACK GROUND, IN OUR VIEW, THE ORDER OF THE AO IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE. FURTHER, INTEREST IS GRANTED FOR REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS LOCKED UP WITH THE ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 6 -: GOVERNMENT AND THE TECHNICAL DEFECTS, IF ANY, WILL NOT DISENTITLE THE INTEREST LEGITIMATELY DUE. THE LD. AR CONSIDERING THE FACTS, SUBMISSIONS BEFOR E ASSESSING OFFICER AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS, SUCH DELAY IS NOT ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS N OT ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DROP THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT CONSIDERED THE FACTS, RECTIFICATION PET ITION AND ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND MADE A ELABORATE FINDINGS ON THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED TDS CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TDS CERTIFICATE WHI CH ARE DEFECTIVE AS PER THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10.08.2007. THE DE FECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATE WERE HANDOVER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ORDER OF ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT VERIFIC ATION OF TDS CLAIM. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 15. 03.2013 REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW TDS CLAIM AND SUBMIT TED INDEMNITY BOND. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF IN DEMNITY BOND PASSED RECTIFICATION ORDER U/SEC. 154 OF THE ACT DATED 19. 04.2013 ALLOWING TDS CREDIT AND GRANTING INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT O N THE REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE FROM APRIL, 2001 TO MARCH, 2013. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE GRANTING REFUND HAS NOT DONE PROPER VERIFICAT ION OR APPLIED HIS ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 7 -: MIND WHETHER THE DELAY IN PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN REFUND WHOLLY AND PARTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY PERIOD TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER PROVISIONS U/S.244A(2) OF THE ACT. PRIME FACIE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE TIME TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO FILE BELATEDLY TDS CERTIFICATES. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLAN ATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ISSUE OF G RANTING INTEREST ON REFUND IGNORING THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSES SEE AND RELIED ON THE APEX COURT DECISION OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 OBSERVED AT PAGE 4 OF ORDER AS UNDER:- THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE O R ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ALS O WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTR ACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SAME CATEGORY FALL O RDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES, THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ERRONEOUSLY GAVE TDS CREDIT BASED ON INDEMNITY BOND AND INTEREST U /S.244A WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE PERIOD OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE A SSESSEE. AS NO INTEREST U/SEC.244A OF THE ACT IS PAYABLE FOR DELA Y AND ALSO IF THERE IS DISPUTE ON THE TIME PERIOD EXCLUSION, THE MATTER H AS TO BE REFERRED TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO SHALL ADJU DICATE ON ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 8 -: GRANTING OF REFUND. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND GRANTED REFU NDED. THE LD. CIT FOR NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY ASSESSING OFFICER AN D NOT EXCLUDING ANY PERIOD OF DELAY DUE TO THE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KOTAK MAHINDRA FINANCE LTD VS. DCIT 93 ITD 7 FURTHER DEFECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATES COLLECTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTS ON 10.08.20 07 AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED TDS CERTIFICATES AFTER CORRECTING THE DEFECTS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING CO ULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ARGUMENTS OR GAVE A SUITABLE REPLY RE GARDING EVIDENCE OF RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTS IN THE CERTIFICATE AND RE TURNING TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS BEING THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS GRANTED INTEREST ON REFUND BASED ON THE INDEMNITY B OND FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS SET ASIDE THE RECTI FICATION ORDER DATED 19.04.2013 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS AND ALSO EXCLUDE TH E PERIOD OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANTING INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 9 -: 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED HIS SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL FILED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN REVISION PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUED THE GROUNDS THAT DIRECTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER REVISION PROCEEDINGS IN SET ASIDE OFF THE RE CTIFICATION ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTING REFUND AND INTEREST ON T DS TO EXCLUDE THE PERIOD OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS WIT HOUT ANY BASIS. THE TDS WAS REFUNDED BASED ON THE INDEMNITY BOND AND TD S HAS BEEN DEDUCTED, PAID BY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS OR OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, FURTHER THE TIME TAKEN TO CURE DEFECTS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEDUCTEE AS TDS WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY WHICH IS NO T DISPUTED BUT DUE TO MISTAKE IN TDS CERTIFICATES THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVEN UE AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMEN TLY OPPOSED TO THE GROUNDS AND THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS ASSESSEE BANK HAS NO T SUBMITTED RECTIFIED TDS CERTIFICATES FURTHER ASSESSING OFFICE R RELIED ON THE INDEMNITY BOND AND OVERLOOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 244A(2) OF THE ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 10 -: ACT AND RELIED ON THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR DER AND SUBSTANTIATED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECIS IONS. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND CIRCULARS. THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BANK SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS ON THE TIME LAG OF SUBMITTING RECTIFIED DEFECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATES IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE DEDUCTEE BANK H AS TO RECTIFY WITH CORRECT PAN NUMBER, TDS CHALLAN DETAILS AND SIGNATU RE AND RUBBER STAMP OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE WAS A MANUAL SYSTEM OF ISSUING FORM 16A BY TH E DEDUCTOR AND TDS CREDIT IS GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF FORM 16A PROVID ED IT IS A DEFECT FREE AND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OBTAIN INDEMNITY BON D FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANTING TDS CREDIT IN DEFECTIVE TDS CERTIFICATE CASES AND SUCH PRACTICE IS PREVAILING OVER A TIME AND THERE I S NO DISPUTE ON THE ISSUE OF REFUND AND INTEREST ON TDS BASED ON INDEMN ITY BOND BUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE GRANTING THE INTEREST AS UNDER:- IF THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN THE REFUND ARE DE LAY FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER WHOLL Y AND IN PART, THE PERIOD OF THE DELAY SO ATTRIBUTABLE TO HI M SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PERIOD FOR WHICH INTEREST IS PAYA BLE, AND WHERE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE PERIOD TO BE EX CLUDED, IT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSION ER OR] ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 11 -: CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER WHOSE DECISION THEREON SHALL BE FINAL . WE ON PERUSAL OF RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE CALCULATION SHEET IN GRANTING INTEREST FOR A S PECIFIED PERIOD ON THE REFUND AND APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SEC. 24 4A(2) OF THE ACT EXCLUDING THE DELAY PERIOD ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED MANUALLY ALONGWITH TDS CERTIFICATE BE FORE DUE DATE OF RETURN IF ANY TDS CERTIFICATES COULD NOT FILED ALON GWITH RETURN, IT IS DUTY CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS SEPARATELY ALONGWI TH CORRESPONDING LETTERS AT THE EARLIEST. AS PER THE PROVISIONS, TD S CREDIT HAS TO BE GIVEN FROM THE DATE OF SUBMISSIONS OF CERTIFICATES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS DEALT IN HIS REVISION ORDER BUT A SSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE OVERLOOKED THE SUCH CALCULATIONS. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. VARANASI KHANTA RAO (2015) 56 TAXMANN.COM 1 75 (AP) WERE THE LORDSHIP HELD THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX HAS GOT THE POWER TO POINT OUT ERRORS WHICH EFFECT ON REVEN UE AND SIMILAR ISSUE OF SEC.244A OF THE ACT DEALT BY THE HIGH COU RT OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF L. MADANLAL STEELS LTD. VS. CCIT (2015) 56 TAXMNN.COM 13 (AP) WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOR INTEREST ON DELAY OF REFUND BASED ON THE TDS CERTIFICATE OBTAIN ED SUBSEQUENTLY, AND FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND INDEMNITY BOND AND IT WA S HELD THAT WHERE ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 12 -: THERE IS NO DELAY ON PART OF THE DEPARTMENT IN MAKI NG REFUND AFTER GIVING INDEMNITY BOND BY THE ASSESSEE NO INTEREST W AS ALLOWABLE. 8. WE CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PR OVISIONS OF TDS AND GRANT OF INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO CLAIM INTEREST ON REFUND PROVI DED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS CORRECT TDS CERTIFICATE WITHIN THE TIME AND ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST ON REFUND. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSE E IN CASE OF MANUAL CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16A TO VERIFY AND SUBMIT TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND RECTIFY THE DEFECTS AT THE EARLIEST. SUCH DELAY SHALL NOT BE A HINDRANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR GRANTING R EFUND. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244A(2) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF GRANTING INTEREST. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATIONS AND VERIFIED THE PROVISIONS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS VIZ-A-VIZ EX PLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN SETTING ASIDE THE REC TIFICATION ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND EXAMINE O N PROVISIONS APPLICABLE FOR GRANTING INTEREST. WE, THEREFORE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND UPHOLD THE SAME. ITA NOS.1320 TO 1326/MDS/2015. :- 13 -: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1320/MDS/2015 IS DISMISSED. 9. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 1321 TO 1326/MDS/2015 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI / / DATED:17.03.2016 KV 0 ( *',12 32%, / COPY TO: 1 . &' / APPELLANT 3. 4, () / CIT(A) 5. 278 *',' / DR 2. *+&' / RESPONDENT 4. 4, / CIT 6. 89$ : / GF