BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUMBAI V. JCIT, SPL. RG. 19, MUMBAI

ITA 1620/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: W HASAN LD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1555,1619,1620 & 1621/MUM/2015 & 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.1555/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ZAIN RANGOONWALA BUILDING 78,MOHAMMED ALI ROAD MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-1 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAB-2359-J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.829 &210/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 & 2008-09) BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ZAIN RANGOONWALA BUILDING 78,MOHAMMED ALI ROAD MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAB-2359-J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.1619/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1986-87) BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ZAIN RANGOONWALA BUILDING 78,MOHAMMED ALI ROAD MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-17 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAB-2359-J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.1620/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98) ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 2 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ZAIN RANGOONWALA BUILDING 78,MOHAMMED ALI ROAD MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. JOI NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-19 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAB-2359-J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.1621/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO - OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ZAIN RANGOONWALA BUILDING 78,MOHAMMED ALI ROAD MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAB-2359-J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : W.HASAN, LD.AR REVENUE BY : SUMAN KUMAR, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/12 /2017 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEALS, ALL BY ASSESSEE, FOR DIFF ERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE DISPOSE-OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE & BREVITY. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 210/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2008-09 WHICH CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 26/11/2015 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,02,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZATION OF ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 3 DEPRECIATION (MARCH 2005) TOTALLY IGNORING THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI V/S HDFC BANK LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2012 WHICH WAS REL IED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,07,715 /- ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZATION OF DEPRECIATION (MARCH 2006) TOTALLY IGNORING THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI V/S HDFC BANK LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2012 WHICH WAS REL IED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. DE PUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1) U/S 143(3) ON 20/12 /2010. 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COOPERATIVE BANKING WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 20/12/2010 AT LOSS OF RS.13.20 CRORES AFT ER CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS / DISALLOWANCES AS AGAINST RETURNED LOS S OF RS.19.15 CRORES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/09/2008. THE SOLE SUBJE CT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL IS AMORTIZATION OF DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN INVESTMENTS . 2.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AMORTIZATION OF DEPRECIATION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE HELD MAINLY IN THREE CATEGORIES VIZ. HELD TO MATURITY [HTM], AVAILABLE FOR SALE [AFS] & AVAILABLE FOR TRADING [AFT] AND WHENEVER THE INVESTMENTS WERE SHIFTED FROM AFS/AFT TO HTM CATEGORY, THE SAME WERE DONE AT LEAST OF THE ACQUISITION COST / BOOK VALUE / MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND RESULTANT REDUCTION IN VALUE WAS PROVIDED FOR IN TH E BOOKS BY WAY OF AMORTIZATION CHARGES. THE TRANSFER WAS PERMISSIBLE ONCE IN A YEAR AS PER RBI GUIDELINES AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE ON 11/02/20 05 SHIFTED BONDS HAVING BOOK VALUE OF RS.218.96 CRORES TO HTM CATEGORY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDED THE DEPRECIA TION SINCE IT HAD APPROACHED RBI FOR AMORTIZING LOSSES INCURRED ON TH EIR BOND PORTFOLIOS. ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 4 PURSUANT TO SAME, THE ASSESSEE STARTED AMORTIZING T HE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF 20% OF THE LOSSES OF RS.20.09 CRORES FROM AY 2005-06 AND ACCORDINGLY, AMORTIZED THE SAME FOR RS.4.02 CRORES IN THE IMPUGNED AY. SIMILAR AMORTIZATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1.60 CRORES WA S CLAIMED AGAINST CERTAIN OTHER INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED L D. AO, DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CI T(A) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE [AR], AT THE OU TSET, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE SUFFERED SIMILA R DISALLOWANCE IN AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 WHICH WAS CONTESTED WITHOUT ANY S UCCESS UP-TO THE LEVEL OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NOS. 4907 & 4908/MU M/2011 ORDER DATED 09/01/2013. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AP PEAL AGAINST THE SAME BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITA NOS. 1162 OF 2013 & 1183 OF 2013 WHERE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ADMITTED VIDE ORDER DATED 17/03/2015 AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR DECISION. THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFO RE US. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX, LD. AR PLEADED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSE E TO TAKE RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158A. THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE [DR] FAIRLY CONCEDED THE SAME. 4. HEARD AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. U PON PERUSAL, WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IDENTICAL MATTER I S SUB-JUDICE BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158A TITLED AS PROCEDURE WHEN ASSESSEE CLAIMS IDENTICAL QUESTION O F LAW IS PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. AR, VIDE LETTER DATED 10/11/2017 HAS PLACED ON RECORD ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 5 APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 8 READ WITH RULE 16 OF INCO ME TAX RULES PURSUANT TO SECTION 158A. HENCE, WITHOUT DELVING MU CH DEEPER INTO THE MATTER, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR COMPLETION OF ALL FORMALITIES AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 158A. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE MATTER ON MERITS SHALL BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE COURT IN THE CITED APPEALS. RES ULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 5. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL GROUND IS SOLE GROUND IN ITA NO.1621/MUM/2015 FOR AY 2009-10 & ITA NO. 829/MUM/2 016 FOR AY 2010-11. THE LD. AR HAS PLEADED ON SIMILAR LINES TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158A TO THE SAME. HENCE, THE MATTER IS R ESTORED BACK TO LD. AO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS INCLUDING COMPLETION OF NECESSARY FORMALITIES IN THIS REGARD. RESULTANTLY, THESE TWO APPEALS ALSO STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1555/MUM/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN ALL. GRO UND NO.1 & 2 ARE IDENTICAL GROUNDS I.E. AMORTIZATION OF DEPRECIATION IN INVESTMENTS. THE LD. AR HAD PLEADED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 158A. HENCE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO LD. AO WITH S IMILAR DIRECTIONS, WHICH RESULTS INTO THESE TWO GROUNDS BEING ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NOS. 3 & 5 ARE NOT PRESSED BY LD. AO BEFORE US AND HENCE, THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS GROUND NO. 4 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 6 4.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO NOT ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES OF YEARS EARLIER THAN A.Y.S 2007-08 THAT THIS ISSU E CAN BE REMEDIED U/S 154 OF THE I.T.ACT. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A PPELLANT CAN APPROACH THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE WHO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND GIVE EF FECT TO THE RECTIFICATION, IF REQUIRED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THIS GROUN D HIMSELF AS HE HAS NO POWER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO AO. 8. FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT LD. AO HAS ADJUSTED CARRIED FORW ARD LOSSES OF AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 AGAINST INCOME DETER MINED U/S 143(3). HOWEVER, BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE P OINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS PRIOR TO AY 20 07-08 WHICH WERE FIRST REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT THE SAME COULD BE CONSIDERED BY LD. AO U/S 154. AGGRIEVED, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE FIND THAT MATTER TO BE FACTUAL ONE AND HENCE, DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS INCLUDING AS SESSMENT ORDERS & APPELLATE ORDERS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS ETC. TO SUB STANTIATE HIS CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES AP PEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1619/MUM/2015 FOR AY 1986-87 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 7 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO G RANT INTEREST ON INTEREST INGORING THE INORDINATE DELAY IN GRANTING THE REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY FALUT ON ITS PART WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA L IMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS 280 ITR 643 (SC). 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO G RANT INTEREST ON INTEREST / COMPENSATION FOR INORDINATE DELAY IN GRANTING THE R EFUND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GUJ ARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 350 (SC) WHICH IN FACT SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 27/03/1989 WHERE THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P AMOUNTING TO RS.189.12 LACS WAS D ENIED. THE LD. CIT(A), UPON APPEAL, GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 28/10/1989 AND THE LD. AO GIVING EFFECT TO TH E SAME ON 16/07/1990 RE-WORKED DEMAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AT RS.30.20 LACS. THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AGITATED VARIOU S ISSUES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE FINAL ORDER DATED 06/09/2000. THE LD. AO GAVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 29/08/2004 DETERMINING REF UND OF RS.13.15 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE REFUND AND INTEREST T HEREUPON AGGREGATING IN ALL TO RS.21.02 LACS WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10/05/2012. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING COMPENS ATORY INTEREST ON INTEREST COMPONENT ON THE PREMISE THAT INORDINATE D ELAY TOOK PLACE IN GRANTING REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS 280 ITR 643 (SC). PER CONTRA, REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 350 (SC) . 13. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO GRANT INTEREST ON INTEREST, WHATS OEVER OF ANY NATURE ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 8 AND WHATSOEVER ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE, AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, COULD NOT GO BEYOND REALM OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ARE BOUND BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, ON FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF LARGER BE NCH OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS 358 ITR 291 (SC) WHERE THE HONBLE COURT CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT O F SANDVIK ASIA LTD. HELD AS UNDER:- 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS BEEN MISQUOTED AND MISINTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSEES AND ALSO BY THE REV ENUE. THEY ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA), THIS COURT HAD DIRECTED THE REVENUE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE STATUTORY INTEREST IN CASE OF DELAY IN THE PAYMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTERPRETATION PLACED IS THAT THE REVENUE IS OBLIGE D TO PAY AN INTEREST ON INTEREST IN THE EVENT OF ITS FAILURE TO REFUND THE INTEREST PAY ABLE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. 7. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED, IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE ISSUE WHETHER AN ASSESSEE WHO IS MA DE TO WAIT FOR REFUND OF INTEREST FOR DECADES BE COMPENSATED FOR THE GREAT P REJUDICE CAUSED TO IT DUE TO THE DELAY IN ITS PAYMENT AFTER THE LAPSE OF STATUTORY P ERIOD. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THIS COURT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN REFUNDING CERTAIN AMOUNT WHICH INCLU DED THE STATUTORY INTEREST AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE REVENUE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME NOT AN INTEREST ON INTEREST. 8. FURTHER IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE LEGIS LATURE BY THE ACT NO. 4 OF 1988 (W.E.F. 01.04.1989) HAS INSERTED SECTION 244A TO TH E ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS UNDER VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES. WE CLARIFY THAT IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INT EREST. 9. WITH THE AFORESAID CLARIFICATION WE NOW REFER BACK ALL THE MATTERS BEFORE A TWO JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT TO CONSIDER EACH CASE IND EPENDENTLY AND TAKE AN APPROPRIATE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND IN V IEW OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 244A, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE GRANTED ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER OF ANY NATURE WHICH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE EXPRE SS PROVISIONS OF LAW. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 9 ITA NO. 1620/MUM/2015 FOR AY 1997-98 14. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL IS IDENTICA L TO ISSUE RAISED IN AY 1986-87 I.E. ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST ON INTERE ST DUE TO INORDINATE DELAY IN GRANTING OF REFUND. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) FOR THE IMPUGNED AY WAS COMPLETED ON 10/03/2000 WHERE A DEMAND OF R. 1.19 CRORES WAS RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE WERE MULTIPLE AP PEALS TO CIT(A) / ITAT. FINALLY, ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) ON 03 /02/2010 DETERMINING NIL INCOME. THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAME WAS PAS SED BY LD. AO ON 24/06/2010 DETERMINING REFUND OF RS.94 .55 LACS WHICH WAS FINALLY ISSUED ON 15/07/2011. BY WAY OF THIS AP PEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING COMPENSATORY INTEREST ON INTEREST DUE TO DE LAY IN GRANT OF REFUND BY THE REVENUE. 15. SINCE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL, TAKING SAME STAND , WE DISMISS REVENUES APPEAL BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS 358 ITR 291 (SC). RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . 16. TO SUM UP, ITA NOS. 210/MUM/2016, 1621/MUM/2015 , 829/MUM/2016, 1555/MUM/2015 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS ITA NOS. 1619-20/MUM/2015 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 13.12.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ITA.NO.1555,1619,1620 & 1621//MUM/2015 829 & 210/MUM/2016 BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 10 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. $'- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI