Mr. Shantilas P. Lunawat, Pune V. Asstt.CIT.Cir. 3(2), Pune, Pune

ITA 158/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49852 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 246A; 263; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ITA NO.158/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR 1993-94) SHRI SHANTILAL P.LUNAWAT, PUNE PAN ABRPL4889L APPELLANT VS. ASST.CIT CIRCLE 3(2), PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.GOPAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.AMBASTHA ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-I, PUNE DATED 4-9-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) I, ERRED IN REJECTING THE INTEREST CL AIMED U/S 244A ON THE AMOUNTS OF TAX REFUNDED AS PER THE ORDER U/S 154 DT .22-4-1999 WHICH WERE PAID BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX, TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM 1-4-1993 TO 22-4- 1999, HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST AS THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN REFUND ARE DELAYED FOR REASONS ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE OBSERVATION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) I, EARED IN REJECTING THE INTEREST CL AIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID FROM THE DAT E OF PAYMENT TO THE DATE OF AMOUNT REFUNDED, HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT ENTITLED TO INTEREST AS THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN REFUND ARE DELAYED FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE O THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS FINDIN G, ALSO GIVEN THE FINDING 2 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT THAT THE INTEREST U/S 244A CANNOT BE GRANTED AS IT IS NEITHER COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SEC.244A(1) NOR CLAUSE (B) OF SEC.244 A(1). 3. THE LD.CIT(A) I, ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.46,800 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 29-3-1996 TO THE DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER U/S 154 I.E. 22-4-1999 FOR THE REASON THAT SINCE IT IS HELD THAT THE DELAY IN GRANTING REFUND IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF T HE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A FOR THE PERIOD FR OM 29-3-1996 I.E. DATE OF ADJUSTMENT OF WEALTH TAX RS.46,800 BEING THE AMOUNT OUT OF REFUND DUE UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991- 92 WHICH WAS ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE ASSESSMENT DUES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 193 -94. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) I, ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF TH E APPELLANT FOR GRANTING THE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CLAIMED. 2. RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLAN T FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-8-1993 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.66,79,910 CONSISTI NG OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.61,34,280 AND OTHER INCOME OF RS.5,45,630. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS D ISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS ACTUALLY ASSESSABL E IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992- 93. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE SUBJECT INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE DEMAND THUS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1992-93 WORKED OUT TO RS.50,59,186 AND RS.2,66,972 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1993-94. THE DEMAND RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 CONSEQUENT TO THE A SSESSMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,66,972 WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, IT APPEARS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.46,800 BEING REFUND OF WEALTH TAX DUE TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 WAS ALSO ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE INCOME TAX DEMAND RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. THE DEMAND RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS WAS NOT PAID BY THE AP PELLANT. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04, THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DT.1 2-8-1996 ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBJECT LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS WAS TAXABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE A SSESSEE WAS REFUNDED THE TAXES PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.2,63,893 ALONG WITH INTE REST U/S 244A AMOUNTING TO 3 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT RS.13,190. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 DEMAND RELATING TO CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS GOT REDUCED CONSEQUEN T TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE ITAT FOR BOTH THE YEARS. IN THE MEANTIME, ASSESSEE FILED A DECLARATION DT.30-12- 1998 UNDER THE KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME (KVSS) AN D PAID TAX OF RS.11,02,501 UNDER KVSS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THUS, OUT OF THE TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.50,59,186 RAISED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS, THE ASSESSEE SETTLED THE MATTER UNDER KVSS BY MAKING PA YMENT OF RS.11,02,501. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKING REFUND OF TAXES PAID FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1993-94 ALONG WITH INTEREST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 WHEREIN THE SUBJECT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE TAXED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS U/S 154 AND A REFUND OF RS.13,96,309 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WHILE GRANTING THE SAID REFUND, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GRANT THE REFUND OF TAX OF RS.46,800 BEING ADJUSTMENT OF WEALTH TAX REFUND AGA INST THE INCOME TX DEMAND AND ALSO INTEREST U/S 244A IN RESPECT OF TAXES PAID BY WAY OF TDS, ADVANCE TAX, AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. ON APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S 154, THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER PASSED ON 11-7-2000 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND LAW APP LICABLE AND GRANT INTEREST U/S 244A(1)(A) ON THE REFUNDS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PE R LAW. HOWEVER, IN HIS ORDER PASSED GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A(1)(A ) SINCE THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) AS ALSO THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) RESULTED IN DEMAND. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSING TO GRAN T INTEREST U/S 244A(1)(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD .CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED ON 3-5-2001, DISMISSED HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REFUSING INTEREST U/ S 244A WHICH WAS APPEALED AGAINST, IS NOT COVERED U/S 246A OF THE I.T.ACT. A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DT.3-5-2001, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE T HE ITAT. THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER PASSED ON 24-2-2006 IN ITA NO.1202/PN/02 HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 HAD AN EFFECT OF REDUCING THE REFUND OR REFUSING TO ALLOW 4 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ALLOW ABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 244A(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, APPEALABLE U/S 246A(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DE CIDE THE ISSUE ON ITS MERITS. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DELAY IN GRANTING OF THE RE FUND WAS NO ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE EXPLAINED THE FACTS LEADING TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO RELIE D ON THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. V. CIT AN D OTHERS (2006) 200 CTR (SC) 505. IN MATTERS OF DELAY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE PERIOD UP TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE AS PER KVSS SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE AND HE RELIED ON A SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL OF AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PUNITABEN KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFI C DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST V. ITO104 TTJ (AHD0 (SB) 773. PARAGRAPH 34 OF THE SAI D SPECIAL BENCH ORDER WAS REFERRED TO. HOLDING THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS RE NDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF REVISIONARY ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE CIT9A) FO UND THE SAID DECISION DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND HELD THAT THE SAID CAS E DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT FROM THE TIME OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE REFUND IN THE MONTH FEBRUARY, 1999 I.E. THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE UND ER KVSS, THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT T O FEBRUARY, 1999 UP TO APRIL, 1999, THE CIT9A) HELD THAT THE SAID PERIOD IS COVER ED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A OF THE AC. FINALLY, THE CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST, VIDE PARA 4.5 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER. IN OTHER WORDS, TILL THE MATTER WAS SETTLED UNDER KVSS IN FEBRUARY, 1999, THE ADVANCE TAX, TDS AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE RETURN WAS NOT DUE TO BE REF UNDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE UNDER KVSS IN FEBRUARY, 1999; CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WAS PASSED IN APRIL, 1999, GRAN TING REFUND OF THE PREPAID TAXES TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER SETTLEMENT OF THE DIS PUTE UNDER KVSS, THERE WAS NO DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN IS SUING THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THERE IS A DELAY IN GRANT OF REFUND BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AFTER SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE UNDER THE K VSS, THERE COULD BE A CASE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM INTEREST ON THE REFUND AS THE DELAY IN SUCH CASE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSE SSEE. BUT THAT IS 5 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT NOT THE CASE HERE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROMPTL Y ISSUED THE REFUND SOON AFTER THE ISSUE OF KVSS CERTIFICATE B THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THUS, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE PERI OD FROM 1-4-1993 TO 26-2- 1999 THE DELAY IN MAKING THE CLAIM IS CLEARLY ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST FOR THIS P ERIOD IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.244A(2). 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND ARISING FROM THE PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX AS IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SEC.244A( 1) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE CIT(A) FOUND AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.7 OF HIS ORDER THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-4-99 TO 22-4-99 ON T HE REFUND ISSUED AS PER THE ORDER U/S 154 DT. 22-4-99 AS HE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN REFUND ARE DELAYED FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US AND NARRATING THE DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO THE PASSING O F AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED STATING THAT THE DELAY IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM A THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS ARE TAXABLE I THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 ONL Y BUT FOR THE SUBSEQUENTLY INTRODUCED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SCHEME NAMED KAR VIV AD SAMADHAN SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR THE SAID SCHEME IN A BONA FIDE B ELIEF AND THUS, THE DISPUTE HAS REACHED SETTLEMENT AND ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO CONT RIBUTE TO THE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE DETERM INATION OF THE REFUND. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL RELIED ON PARA 34 OF THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD DT.7-7-2006 IN THE CASE O F PUNITABEN KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST SUPRA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS HYPER-TECHNICAL IN TH E INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION THAT THE SAID PARAGRAPH 47 IS CLEAR IN STATING THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTA INABLE. 6 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE ARGUED STATING THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES MISTAKE IN IMPROPERLY DIS CLOSING THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ASSESSMENT EAR 1993-94 WHERE HE HIMSELF SETTLED THE DISPUTE FINALLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, WHICH IS HE STAND OF THE R EVENUE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE DELAY SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. FURTHER, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE SAID ORDERS OF THE DEPARTMENT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CITED JUDGMENTS BEFORE US. IN BRIEF, THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS, IN MATTERS WHERE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY T HE REVENUE AND WHERE THE MATTERS WERE SORTED OUT UNDER KVSS PROVISIONS, THE DELAY IN ARRIVING AT THE PROPER REFUND CANNOT BE MADE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND AS PER THE REVENUE, IN A CASE WHERE MATERS OF DISPUTE WERE SET TLED UNDER THE SAID KVSS, THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. FROM T HE ABOVE THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE DISPUTE OF ATTRIBUTAB ILITY OF DELAY IN ARRIVING AT THE REFUND IS A SETTLED ISSUE AND IT HAS TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BINDING DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE AHMED ABAD SUPRA. FROM PARAGRAPH 34 OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION, THE RELEVANT FEW LIN ES ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. IF THERE IS A DELAY IN GRANT OF REFUND BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AFTER SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE UNDER THE KVSS, THERE COU LD BE A CASE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM INTEREST ON THE REFUND AS THE DELAY IN SUCH CASE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDE RING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE AND IN VIEW OF THE BINDING DECISION OF TH E SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AHEMEDABAD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVENUES STAND THAT THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 7 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT 9. FURTHER, HE ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND ARISING OUT OF TDS AND ALSO SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX, DO ES NOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF B.S.E.S. LTD . (2008) 113 TTJ (MUM) 227 WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT INTEREST U/S 244A AND REFUND OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. F URTHER, THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. 280 ITR 6 43 (SC) ALSO SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEES CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . 10. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO NON GRANTING OF AN AMOUN T OF RS.46,800. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE CLAIM IS FOUND TO BE PROPER TO REFUND THE SAID AMOUNT. WE FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE SAID DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A). RE LEVANT GROUND IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED . HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO NOT TO GRANT INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT U/S 244A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE ATTRIBUTABILITY OF THE DELAY TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, ON CONSIDERING THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 29-3-1996 I.E. THE DATE OF ADJUSTMENT OF WEALTH TAX TILL THE DATE OF PASSING O F THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE DELAY CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A FROM 29-3 -1996 TILL THE DATE OF GRANT OF REFUND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS PART OF GROUND NO.3 IS A LLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 11. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO GRANT OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A)S DECISION IN THIS REGARD IS G IVEN IN PARA 4.9 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW. THE NEXT CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT INTEREST I S ALSO PAYABLE ON THE INTEREST DUE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 22-4-1999 TO31-5-2009 AS T HE GRANT OF INTEREST U/S 244A HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT SURVIVE AS IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENT ITLED TO INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-4-1993 TO 22-4-1999 AS HE DELAY IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 154, WHICH RESULTED IN REFUND IS ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE APPELLANT . 8 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT ONCE IT IS HELD THAT INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO T HE APPELLANT FOR THE ABOVE PERIOD U/S 244A AND WHEN THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IT SELF IS NOT LAWFULLY DUE TO THE APPELLANT, THE QUESTION OF GRANTING FURTHER INT EREST ON INTEREST DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON TH IS GROUND IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE CHANGED SITUATION, WHERE WE HAVE ALREADY IN THE PARAGRAPHS ABOVE THAT DELAY IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 154, W HICH RESULTED IN REFUND CAN NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, TH IS ISSUE HAS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH LOOK IN TO THE MATTER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXISTING LAW/DECISION ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL IS SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06-7-2011. SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 6TH JULY, 2011 *VNR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES AS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE 2. ASSTL.CIT, CIRCLE 3(2), PUNE. 3. CIT (A)-I, PUNE. 4. CIT CONCERNED, 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 9 ITA 158/PN/2010 SHRI SHANTILAL P LUNAWAT I.T.A.T PUNE