M/s Ambuja Darla Kashlog Mangoo Transport Cooperative Society Ltd., Solan V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 282/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6684 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 280 TO 283/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 M/S AMBUJA DARLA KASHLOG MANGOO VS. THE DCIT, C IRCLE, TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PARWANOO DISTT. SOLAN H.P. PAN NO. AAATA1166D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VISHAL MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], FARIDABAD DATED 5.10.2016 (ITA NOS. 228 0, 281 & 283/CHD/2017) AND 4.11.2016 ( ITA 282/CHD/2017). 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIM ITATION FOR A PERIOD OF 18 TO 24 DAYS. SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY HAVE BEEN FILED. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLI CATIONS AND CONSIDERING 2 THE SHORTNESS OF THE PERIOD OF DELAY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS IS HEREBY CONDONED. 3. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THESE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 4. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GRANT OF INTEREST / COMPENSATION ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONS IDERATION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, CERTAIN REFUNDS ARISING OUT OF EXCESS TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURC E WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, THE INTEREST U /S 244A OF THE ACT WAS NOT PAID IN RESPECT OF THOSE REFUNDS. THE ASSESSES FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154/155 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON 21.02.2006 WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTING THAT THE INT EREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON T HE REFUNDS ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DELAYED FOR THE R EASON ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD WAS NOT PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244A(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO PERIOD TO BE EXCLUD ED, IT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AND WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL. A REQUEST WAS ACCORDING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LD. ASSESSING 3 OFFICER TO REFER THE QUESTION OF PERIOD TO BE EXCL UDED TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BUT THE SAME WAS TURNE D DOWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.08.2006. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 28.08.2006 PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE THEN CIT(A) VIDE APPEAL NO. IT/2 10/2006-07/SML DATED 31/07/2007 AND THE LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THE QUESTION OF DELAY ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 DIRECTED THE. ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW INTEREST T O THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED REFUND VOUCHER NO. 025332 OF RS. 41,454/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31/01/2009 ALLOWING INT EREST UPTO DATE OF ISSUE OF ORIGINAL REFUND ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APP LICATION U/S 154/155 OF ACT ON 15-02-2010 THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW INTEREST ON DELAYED REFUND. HOWEVER, THE A PPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2011. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARENDRA DOSHI (2002) 122 TAXMAN.717 ( SC), CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD [2010] 189 TAXMAN 335 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 150 TAXMAN 591 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT ARISING OUT O F REFUNDS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH CATEGORICALLY OBSE RVED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AS WE LL AS OF THE HON'BLE 4 SUPREME COURT AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLUORO CHE MICALS REPORTED IN (2012) 24 TAXMAN 338 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S ANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT, 280 ITR 643 (SC) DID NOT LAY DOWN THE CORREC T LAW AND OUGHT TO BE RECONSIDERED. HENCE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO A L ARGER BENCH OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E LARGER BENCH (THREE JUDGES BENCH) OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC) 126 HAS HELD THAT SECTION 244 A PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS IN VARIOUS CONTING ENCIES AND IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH MAY B E CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. HE, THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE AFORESAID DECISION, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. FOR PROPERLY ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE UNDER C ONSIDERATION, FIRSTLY, WE MAY REFER TO THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC). THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE THROWING LIGHT ON THE C ORE ISSUE IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS BEEN MISQUOTED AND MISINTERPRETED BY THE ASSESSEES AND ALSO BY THE REVENUE. THEY ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN SANDVIK CASE (SUPRA) THIS COURT HAD DIRECTED THE 5 REVENUE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE STATUTORY INTEREST I N 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 FAI LURE TO REFUND THE INTEREST PAYABLE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PE RIOD. 7. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED, IN SANDVIK CASE (SUP RA) THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE ISSUE WHETHER AN ASSESSEE WHO IS MADE TO WAIT FOR REFUND OF INTEREST FOR DECADES BE COMPENSATED FOR THE GREAT PREJUDICE CAUS ED TO IT DUE TO THE DELAY IN ITS PAYMENT AFTER THE LAP SE OF STATUTORY PERIOD. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THIS C OURT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN REFUNDING CERTAIN AMOUNT WHICH INCLUDED THE STATUTO RY INTEREST AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE REVENUE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME NOT AN INTEREST ON INTERE ST. 8. FURTHER IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE LEGISLATURE BY THE ACT NO. 4 OF 1988 (W.E.F. 01.04. 1989) HAS INSERTED SECTION 244A TO THE 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 FRO M THE REVENUE AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN OUR VIEW, REVEALS THAT WHERE THE REVENUE FAILS T O PAY INTEREST ON THE STATUTORY INTEREST AND THE ASSESSEE IS MADE TO WAIT FOR REFUND OF INTEREST FOR DECADES MEANING THEREBY WHERE THERE IS AN INORDINAT E OR EXCESSIVE DELAY, THE COURT WAS JUSTIFIED TO DIRECT THE REVENUE TO PA Y COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME. THE INTEREST AWARDED IN SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS . CIT (SUPRA) CASE 6 WAS IN THE SHAPE OF COMPENSATION AND NOT INTEREST O N INTEREST. IN THE CONCLUDING PARA, THE HON'BLE SUPREME CURT HAS FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS UNDER VARIOUS CONTINGENCIES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT CLARIFIED THAT IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE STATUTE W HICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENUE, AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. 10. AT THIS STAGE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REPROD UCED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244 A OF THE ACT . INTEREST ON REFUNDS. 244A. (1) WHERE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS ACT, HE SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, IN ADDITION TO THE SAID AMOUNT, SIMPLE INTEREST THEREO N CALCULATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY : (A) . 11. NOW WHAT HAS BEEN HELD BY LARGER BENCH (THREE J UDGES BENCH) OF THEE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC) IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT WHICH BECOMES DUE TO ASSESSEE UNDER THE STATUTE. WE FIND THAT ANOTHER LARGER BENCH (TH REE JUDGES BENCH) OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.E.G . LTD (SUPRA) HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE W ORDS REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION 244A? 12. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE INTERES T COMPONENT WILL PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF AMOUNT DUE U/S 244A. IT BECOMES INTEGRAL PART 7 OF THE AMOUNT DUE WHICH BECOMES DUE AND PAYABLE AND THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF CLAIMING INTEREST ON INTEREST. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4. IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE QUESTION IS NOT PROPERLY FRAMED, THEN, AT TIMES, CONFUSION ARISES RESULTING IN WRONG ANSWERS. THE PRESENT BATCH OF CIVIL APPEALS IS AN ILLUSTRATION O F THE PROPOSITION MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 5. IN THE SYNOPSIS TO THE CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S. L. P. (C) NO. 18045/ 2009, THE QUESTION RAISED BY T HE DEPARTMENT IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM INTEREST ON INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN OUR VIEW, ON FACTS, THE QUESTION FRAMED WAS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS. 6. ANNEXURE P-1 IS INCOME-TAX COMPUTATION IN CIVIL APPEAL ARISING FROM S.L.P.(C) NO.18045/2009. ONGOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION, WE FIND THAT DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS TDS WAS RS. 45,73,528. THE TAX PAI D AFTER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS RS. 1,71,00,320. THE TOTAL OF TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,73,528 PLUS TAX PA ID AFTER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF RS. 1,71,00,320 STOOD AT RS. 2,16,73,848. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOTAL TAX PAID HAD TWO COMPONENTS, VIZ., TDS + TAX PAID AFTER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO THE REFU ND OF RS.2,16,73,848 (CONSISTING OF RS. 1,71,00,320 AN D RS. 45,73,528 WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER 57 MONTHS AND WHICH IS THE ONLY ITEM IN DISPUTE). 7. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED STATUTORY INTEREST FOR DELA YED REFUND OF RS.45,73,528 FOR 57 MONTHS BETWEEN APRIL 1, 8 1993 AND DECEMBER 31, 1997 IN TERMS OF SECTION 244A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 8. THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING COMPOUND INTEREST OR INTEREST ON INTEREST AS IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT IN THE CIVIL APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 9. THE NEXT QUESTION WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWE R IS - WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ' REFUND OF A NY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE' IN SECTION 244A ? IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS STATED ABOVE, THERE ARE T WO COMPONENTS OF THE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHIC H THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REFUND, NAMELY TDS OF RS. 45,73,528 AND TAX PAID AFTER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF RS. 1,71,00,320. THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDS THAT THE WORDS 'ANY AMOUNT' WILL NOT INCLUDE THE INTEREST WHICH ACCRUED TO THE RESPONDENT FOR NOT REFUNDING R S. 45,73,528 FOR 57 MONTHS. WE SEE NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT. THE INTEREST COMPONENT WILL PARTAKE OF TH E CHARACTER OF THE AMOUNT DUE' UNDER SECTION 244A. I T BECOMES AN INTEGRAL PART OF RS.45,73,528 WHICH IS N OT PAID FOR 57 MONTHS AFTER THE SAID AMOUNT BECAME DUE AND PAYABLE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, THIS IS THE CASE OF SHORT PAYMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT IS IN THIS WAY THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT. THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE AFORE-STATED GROUNDS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST FOR 57 MONTHS ON RS. 45,73,528. THE PRINCI PAL AMOUNT OF RS. 45,73,528 HAS BEEN PAID ON DECEMBER 31, 1997 BUT NET OF INTEREST WHICH, AS STATED ABOVE , PARTOOK OF THE CHARACTER OF ' AMOUNT DUE' UNDER SECTION 244A. 9 13. AT THIS STAGE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT WORDING IN SECTION 244A O F THE ACT AND HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT USED THE W ORDS REFUND OF EXCESS TAX PAID OR THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID; TH E WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE ARE ANY AMOUNT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS, THEREFORE, STRESSED THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ANY AMOUNT NOT ONLY INCLUDES WITHIN ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT, THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT DUE BUT ALSO THE INTEREST ELEMENT WHICH REMAINS UNPAID ON THE DATE O F ISSUE OF REFUND. THE LD. COUNSEL, WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD (SUPRA), HAS SU BMITTED THAT WHEN THE REVENUE DOES NOT PAY FULL AMOUNT OF REFUND BUT PART AMOUNT IS PAID, THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING UNPAID AMOUNT HAS BOTH THE COMP ONENTS I.E. THE TAX AMOUNT AS WELL AS INTEREST, WHICH FURTHER BECOMES D UE TO THE ASSESSEE UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AS PER S ECTION 244A OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS TYP E OF CONTINGENCY ARISES ONLY WHEN THE INTEREST IS NOT REFUNDED ALONG WITH T AX REFUND, OUT OF TOTAL REFUNDABLE DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE OUTSTAN DING AMOUNT THUS PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT DUE UPON WHICH THE SIMPLE INTEREST IS PAYABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 244 A OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO OTHER PROVIS ION UNDER THE ACT UNDER WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE LIABLE TO PAY INTERE ST WHEN PART PAYMENT IS MADE AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T ACCRUED IS NOT PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY D ELAY THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST COMPONENT U/S 244A FOR UNLIMITED PERIOD WI TH IMPUNITY AND WITHOUT ANY SANCTION, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO GRANTIN G PREMIUM TO A NON- COMPLIANCE OF LAW. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EV EN OTHERWISE IN THE 10 CASE OF ASSESSEE THE INTEREST COMPONENT WAS WITHHE LD FOR A LONG PERIOD AND, HENCE, EVEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION ON THE DEL AYED INTEREST AMOUNT. 14. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DEFINED THE TERM REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS HELD THAT ON T HE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE REFUND ALONG WITH INTEREST, THE WITHHELD OR THE UNPAID AMOUNT ON THE SAID DATE BECOMES AMOUNT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE UPON W HICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT FROM THE D ATE OF WITHHOLDING TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC) HAS ALSO HELD THAT IN CASE OF INORDINATE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, THE REVENUE CAN BE DIRECTED TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME BY WAY OF INTEREST. 15. IN THE CASE IN HAND ALSO, THERE IS AN INORDINAT E DELAY OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS IN PAYMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLLURO CHEMICALS (2014) 1 SCC 126 (SC), THE ASSESS EE IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED FOR THE COMPENSATION FROM THE REVENUE FOR INORDINATE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE REV ENUE TO PAY COMPENSATION IN THE SHAPE OF SIMPLE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT DUE AT THE RATE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENT ITLED TO, ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF EXCESS TAX PAID. IN VIEW OF THI S, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 11 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.10.2017 SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH OCT, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 12