M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, Jaipur

ITA 15/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2077 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 260A; 143(1); 250; 264; 147; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM ITA NO. 15 & 16/JP/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 & 2006-07 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, NAHARGARH ROAD, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04 JAIPUR PAN/GIR NO.: AACFR2488P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SH. S L PODDAR (ADVOCATE) REVENUE BY : SH. K. C. GUPTA (JCIT) DATE OF HEARING : 23/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/04/2020 ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 13.11.2018 FOR A.Y 2004-05 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, BOTH THESE AP PEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER. ITA NO. 15/JP/2019 2. FIRSTLY, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IN ITA N O. 15/JP/2019 FOR A.Y 2004-05 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HAS EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) AND SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) DATED 27.1 2.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 2 THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND NECESSARY RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL C ONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE R EVENUE MOVED IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND BY ORDER IN DB APPEAL NO. 932/2008 DATED 26.05.2017, THE HONBLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND REVIVED THE ORDER PAS SED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TH E AO PASSED THE CONSEQUENTIAL APPEAL EFFECT ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 WHEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,05,16,387/- RAISING THE TOT AL DEMAND OF RS. 1,32,15,354/- TOWARDS TAX AND INTEREST. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 STATING THAT INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D WERE WRONGLY COMPUTED. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTIONS SO ADVANCED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID APPLICATION WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO ASSES SING OFFICER AND HE DISPOSED OFF THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESS EE VIDE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017. HOWEVER WHILE PASSING THE SAID RECTIFIC ATION ORDER, SHORT CREDIT OF TAXES PAID BY WAY OF REGULAR CHALLANS WAS ALLOWE D AND AS AGAINST THE INITIAL DEMAND OF RS. 1,32,15,354/-, DEMAND WAS RED UCED TO RS. 84,33,029/- TOWARDS TAXES AND INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN MOVE D AN APPLICATION U/S 154 RAISING THE PLEA THAT INTEREST U/S 220(2) AND 2 34D HAVE BEEN WRONGLY COMPUTED AND NECESSARY RECTIFICATION MAY BE CARRIED OUT IN WORKING OF SUCH INTEREST LEVY. REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 220(2), THE AO REFERRED TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 220(2) INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 2014 W.E.F 01.10.2014 AND HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVIS O THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. FURTHER, THE AO HELD THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES VS. ITO 247 ITR 821 IS DISTINGUISHABLE AS THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED I N YEAR 2001 AND THEREFORE, HAS DEALT WITH ERSTWHILE PROVISIONS AND NOT THE CUR RENT PROVISIONS AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014. ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 3 4. REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234D, IT WAS STATED BY THE AO THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND TO THE DATE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 WHICH ON APPEAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). AGAINST THE SAID FINDING, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 220(2 ) AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 ARE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CAS E OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 260A(5) OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISO INSERTED IN SECTION 220(2) HAS NO REFERENCE TO ORDER PASSED U/S 260A AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS READS AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT, WHERE AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154, OR SECTION 155, OR SECTION 250, OR SECTION 254, OR SEC TION 260, OR SECTION 262, OR SECTION 264 OR AN ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D, THE AMOUNT ON WHIC H INTEREST WAS PAYABLE UNDER THE SECTION HAD BEEN REDUCED, THE INT EREST SHALL BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY AND THE EXCESS INTEREST PAID, I F ANY, SHALL BE REFUNDED. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST PROVISO, THE AMOUNT ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAYABLE UNDER THIS SECTION HAD BEEN REDUCED AND SUB SEQUENTLY AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SAID SECTIONS OR SECTION 2 63, THE AMOUNT ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAYABLE UNDER THIS SECTION IS IN CREASED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) FROM THE DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE END OF THE PERIOD MEN TIONED IN THE FIRST ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 4 NOTICE OF DEMAND, REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) AN D ENDING WITH THE DAY ON WHICH THE AMOUNT IS PAID: 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE SECOND PR OVISO SPEAKS ONLY OF SECTIONS REFERRED IN THE EARLIER PROVISO WHICH ARE SECTION 154, OR SECTION 155, OR SECTION 250, OR SECTION 254, OR SECTION 260 , OR SECTION 262, OR SECTION 264 OR AN ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D. THESE DO NOT INCLUDE SECTION 260A AT ALL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAI D PROVISO. SIMILARLY LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW . FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DEFAULT AND THE DEMAND HAS BEEN PAID, THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SUBJECT TO LEVY OF I NTEREST U/S 220(2) AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DE CISION IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES VS ITO (2001) 247 ITR 821. IT WAS THUS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 220(2) FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD STARTING FROM THE FIRST DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT. 7. REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234D, THE LD AR REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234D WHICH READS AS UNDER: 234D. (1) SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, WHERE ANY REFUND IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143, AND (A) NO REFUND IS DUE ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT; OR (B) THE AMOUNT REFUNDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTIO N 143 EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT, ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 5 THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF ONE- HALF PER CENT ON THE WHOLE OR THE EXCESS AMOUNT SO REFUNDED, FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRISED IN THE PER IOD FROM THE DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND TO THE DATE OF SUCH REGULAR ASSE SSMENT. (2) WHERE, AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 15 4 OR SECTION 155 OR SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 260 OR SECTION 262 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 OR AN ORDER OF TH E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D, T HE AMOUNT OF REFUND GRANTED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143 IS HELD TO BE CORRECTLY ALLOWED, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, THEN, THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE, IF ANY, UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. EXPLANATION 1.WHERE, IN RELATION TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR, AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDER SECTION 147 OR SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE SHALL BE REGARDED AS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION. EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL ALSO APPLY TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2003 IF THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS COMPLETED AFTER THE SAID DATE. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234D CAN BE LEVIED WHERE ANY REFUND IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND EITHER THERE IS NO REFUND WHICH IS DUE ON REGULAR A SSESSMENT OR THE AMOUNT REFUNDED UNDER SECTION 143(1) EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RE FUNDABLE ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THE FIRST REFUND HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 6.02.2008 AND THE SECOND REFUND HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 9.04.2014 AND BY THAT TIME, THE ASSESSMENT HAS ALRE ADY BEEN COMPLETED ON 27.12.2006. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REFUND SO ISSUED IS NOT A ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 6 REFUND WHICH IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) BUT A REFUND PURSUANT TO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE REFORE, NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHARGED INTEREST FOR THE PERI OD STARTING THE DATE OF REFUND OF FIRST REFUND 6.2.2008 AND TILL THE DATE O F THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2017 WHERE AS THE RE QUIREMENT OF THE LAW IS THAT SUCH INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED FOR THE PERIOD FR OM THE DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND TO THE DATE OF SUCH REGULAR ASSESSMENT. 9. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A MENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 220(2) ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) HAS BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO AN D THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES DOES NT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RENDERED IN CONTE XT OF PRE-AMENDED PROVISIONS. FURTHER, HE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) AS WELL A S SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 26 0A PROVIDES THAT THE HIGH COURT SHALL DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW SO FORMULATE D AND DELIVER SUCH JUDGMENT THEREON CONTAINING THE GROUNDS ON WHICH SU CH DECISION IS FOUNDED. FURTHER, SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 260 PROVIDES T HAT WHERE THE HIGH COURT DELIVERS A JUDGMENT IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE IT UN DER SECTION 260A, EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDE R, THE SAME IS THUS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 260(1A) R/W SECTION 260A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 220(2) TALKS ABOUT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 260 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 260A CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 7 11. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN DB APPEAL NO. 932/2008 DATED 26.05.2017, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3 ) DATED 27.12.2006 IS RESTORED AND CONSEQUENT ORIGINAL DEMAND NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 156 HAS BEEN REVIVED. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES (SUPRA) CANNOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE A S AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (1A) TO SECTION 220 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TH AT WHERE ANY NOTICE OF DEMAND HAS BEEN SERVED UPON AN ASSESSEE AND ANY APP EAL OR OTHER PROCEEDING, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS FILED OR INITIAT ED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE SAID NOTICE OF DEMAND, THEN SUCH D EMAND SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE VALID TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY THE LAST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY OR DISPOSAL OF PROCEEDINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND SUCH NOTICE OF DEMAND SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3 OF THE TAXATION LAW S (CONTINUATION AND VALIDATION OF RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS) ACT, 1964. 12. NOW, IN TERMS OF CHARGING INTEREST U/S 220(2), THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 220(2) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 PR OVIDES THAT WHERE AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTIONS SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST PROVISO, THE AMOUNT ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAYABLE UNDER THIS SECTION HAD B EEN REDUCED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AS A RESULT OF AN ORDER UNDER SAID SEC TIONS OR SECTION 263, THE AMOUNT ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAYABLE UNDER THIS SEC TION IS INCREASED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) FROM THE DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE END OF THE PERIOD MENTION ED IN THE FIRST NOTICE OF DEMAND, REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) AND ENDING W ITH THE DAY ON WHICH THE AMOUNT IS PAID. THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, TH E ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/S 220(2) FROM THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD M ENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 27.12.2006 AND ENDING WITH T HE DAY WHEN THE SAME ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 8 IS PAID. ON PERUSAL OF THE WORKING OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN C ALCULATED FOR THE PERIOD STARTING FEBRUARY 2007 (EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM DA TE OF ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 156 DATED 27.12.2006) TILL OCTOBER 2017 (DATE OF TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT ORDER) AND SPILT CALCULATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PAYMENT OF REGULAR TAXES ON 17.03.2007 , 31.03.2007 AND 8.4.2010. THE AMOUNT SO PAID HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN FIRST ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D AND BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND AN D THE INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CALCULATED ACCORDINGLY. THE LD AR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY FURTHER DEFECT IN THE SAID CALCULAT ION EXCEPT ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D, AM OUNT SO PAID SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING TAX AND INTEREST D EMAND EXCEPT INTEREST U/S 234D AND INTEREST U/S 220(2) SHOULD BE CALCULATED A CCORDINGLY. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT WHERE THERE I S NO BASIS FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D AND SUCH LEVY IS ULTIMATELY HELD TO BE NOT VALID IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WILL GO TO OFFSET THE OUTSTANDING TAX AND INTEREST DEMAND EXCEPT INTEREST U/S 234D AND ONLY ON THE REMAINING OUTSTANDING DEMAND, THE INTEREST U/S 220(2) SHALL BE LEVIED. 13. NOW, COMING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D, WE A GREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT WHERE NO REFUND HAS BE EN GRANTED U/S 143(1) TO THE ASSESSEE, THE QUESTION OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234D DOESNT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE CO NTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT SUCH INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED FOR THE PERIOD FROM TH E DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND TO THE DATE OF SUCH REGULAR ASSESSMENT I.E, 27.12.2 006 IN THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 9 14. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, THE MATTER I S ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PURPOSES OF V ERIFYING WHETHER ANY REFUND HAS BEEN GRANTED PURSUANT TO INTIMATION U/S 143(1) AND ONLY IN A SCENARIO WHERE SUCH REFUND HAS BEEN GRANTED, THE INTEREST U/ S 234D SHALL BE LEVIED FROM THE DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND TO THE DATE OF REG ULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHERE IT IS FOUND TH AT NO REFUND HAS BEEN GRANTED PURSUANT TO INTIMATION U/S 143(1), THE ASSE SSEE SHALL BE GRANTED RELIEF FROM SUCH LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D AND CONS EQUENTIALLY, LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) WILL ALSO UNDERGO A CHANGE AS D ISCUSSED IN PARA 11 ABOVE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST U/S 220(2) AFTER GRANTING CREDIT FOR AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE O UTSTANDING TAXES INSTEAD OF INTEREST U/S 234D AS DONE CORRECTLY. 15. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPO SED OFF IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. ITA NO. 16/JP/2019 16. NOW, COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y 2006-07. BOTH THE PARTIES FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITA NO. 15/JP/2019 AND SIMILAR CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 15/JP/ 2019 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OFF IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. ITA NO.15 & 16/JP/2019 M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-04, J AIPUR 10 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/04/2020. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/04/2020 * GANESH KR. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, JAIPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE {ITA NOS. 15 & 16/JP/2019} BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR