N Palaniappan, Trichy V. ACIT, Company Circle-II, Madurai

ITA 202/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7407 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R V AROON PRASAD JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: S KEERTHIRAJAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.202/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005. N. PALANIAPPAN, PL.A. ROYAL ARCADE, FLAT NO.5, I FLOOR, 10 TH CROSS WEST, FURTHER EXTENSION, THILLAI NAGAR, TRICHY 620 018. [PAN AEVPP 6890C] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, MADURAI ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. KEERTHIRAJAN, C.A. $%! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R.V. AROON PRASAD, JCIT. & ' ' () /DATE OF HEARING : 10-07-2018 *+ ' () /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-07-2018 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTED AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)- 1, MADURAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED THAT INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE INCOME TAX ITA NO.202/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS NOT GRANTED TO IT ON THE TAX REFUND. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE WAS AN EX-EMPLOYEE OF ICICI BANK. AS PER THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN EXEMPTION OF F5,00,000/- U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. THE SAID RELIEF AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS GIVEN ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT IN THE MEANWHILE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RECTIFICATION PETIT ION WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ON 22.05.20 12, GAVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) CALCULATING THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT F15,5 0,070/- AND GRANTED A REFUND OF F1,63,905/-. HOWEVER INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR SUCH INTEREST THROUGH A PETITION, WHEN IT RECEIVED THE GIVING EFFECT ORDER DATED 22.05.2012 OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAID PETITION, TAKING A VIEW THAT REF UND AROSE DUE TO RELIEF GRANTED ON AN APPELLATE ORDER AND THE DELAY WAS AT TRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE DEPARTMENT. ON ASSESSEES AP PEAL, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA NO.202/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS EARL IER APPEAL AGAINST NON GRANT OF RELIEF U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT BELATEDL Y. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD EARLIER CONDONED THE DELAY OF FIV E YEARS AND SIX MONTHS, HE HELD SUCH DELAY AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE A SSESSEE. HE THUS, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE S TRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE ORIGINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN CONDONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THERE WAS NO REASON WHY ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE GRANTED INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. 4. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SECTION 244A(2) O F THE ACT WHICH IS APPOSITE HERE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- (2 ) IF THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN THE REFUND ARE DELAYED FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH PERIOD SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PERIOD FOR WHICH INTEREST IS PAYABLE AND WHERE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE PERIOD TO BE EXCLUDED, IT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL ITA NO.202/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHOSE DECISION THEREON SHALL BE FINAL. ASSESSEE WAS DENIED INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT FO R A REASON THAT APPEAL FILED BY IT AGAINST DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) OF THE ACT WAS WITH A DELAY OF FIVE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS. HO WEVER, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE CONCERNED LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONDONING SUCH DELAY. N OT ONLY THE DELAY WAS CONDONED, BUT ALSO RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE ASSESS EE WAS GIVEN. REFUND BECAME DUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUC H RELIEF. WHEN AN ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXEMPTION GIVEN TO I T UNDER THE ACT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO GIVE SUCH EXEM PTION AT THE FIRST STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO MO VE AN APPEAL TO GET THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO IT U/S.10(10C) OF TH E ACT, DUE TO DENIAL OF SUCH RELIEF BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSES SEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT HAVE BELIEVED THAT EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF T HE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM AND CHOSEN NOT TO MOVE AN APPEAL I N THE INITIAL STAGE. HOWEVER, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT ASSESSEE D ID FILE THE APPEAL WITH AND SUCH DELAY WAS CONDONED BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN NOT SAY THAT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN THE REFUND WERE DELAYED TO ANY REASON ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ESPECIALLY SO, SINCE THE QUESTION WHETHER ITA NO.202/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: EXEMPTION U/S.10(10C) OF THE ACT COULD BE GIVEN TO AN EMPLOYEE RETIRING FROM A PRIVATE SECTOR BANK, WAS IN A FL UID STAGE AND NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. ISSUE WAS RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE MUCH LATER. THUS IN OUR OPINION PROCEEDINGS RESULTING REFUND W AS NOT DELAYED DUE TO ANY REASON ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THE REFORE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE. LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT ON THE REFUND GRANTED TO IT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON 10 TH JULY, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( . ! ' ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED:10 TH JULY, 2018. KV / ' $(0 1 2 1 ( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 3( ( ) / CIT(A) 5. 167 $(8 / DR 2. $%! / RESPONDENT 4. & 3( / CIT 6. 79 :' / GF