HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 340/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 34019914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 1984-1985
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS
• Section: 244A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 340/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, CENTURY BHAVAN DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400 030 VS. ACIT-6(3) ROOM NO. 522, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :-AAACH 1201 R APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARESH JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .05.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-12, MUMBAI DATED 11.10.2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1984-85. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S 154 PASSED BY AO, IN WHICH AO HAD NOT GRANTED I NTEREST ON INTEREST U/S 244A TO THE TUNE OF RS.61,43,614/-. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN IGNORING TH E FACT THAT DEPARTMENT HAD WRONGLY WITHHELD INTEREST ON INTEREST FOR WHICH YOUR APPELLANT IS LEGALLY ENTITLED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RECTIFICA TION APPLICATION DATED 10.07.2010 U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT REQUESTING THE AO FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2002 STATING THAT THE CREDIT FOR RS.21,80,000/- WHICH WAS PAID AS TAX BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN. THIS TAX AM OUNT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST REFUND OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 WHEREAS THE ASSES SEE HAD ALSO PAID THE SAME. ITA NO. 340/MUM/2013 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85 2 THUS, THIS RESULTED IN DOUBLE ADJUSTMENT. ON PERUSA L OF THE RECORDS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT B Y HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND RECTIFIED THE SAID MISTAKE U/S 154 BY ORDER DATED 22.02.2011. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE AO CALCULA TED THE INTEREST U/S 244 AND THE SAID CALCULATION WAS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO SECTION 244 A. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST U /S 244A WORKS OUT TO RS.1,24,02,346/- AS AGAINST THE INTEREST ALLOWED BY THE AO FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.62,58,732/-. ON APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE AO ON THE REASON THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE F OR INTEREST TO BE GRANTED ON INTEREST GIVEN ON REFUND. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE CLAIM FOR THE GRANT OF INTEREST ON INTEREST GIVEN ON REFUND. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS DATED 18.09.2013 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO THE INTEREST PROVIDED UNDER THE ST ATUTE FROM THE REVENUE IN CASE OF DELAY OF REFUND AND SUCH INTEREST DOES NOT INCLUDE INTEREST ON INTEREST. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT FLUORO CH EMICALS (SUPRA) WHICH RESULTED IN DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAID RATIO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISM ISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MAY, 2014. /SD/ /SD / (RAJENDRA) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30.05.2014. *SRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 340/MUM/2013 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR H BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.