ACIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI V. TATA POWER CO.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3977/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3323 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !'#$ , % &' BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ./I.T.A. NOS.3977 & 3978/MUM/2012 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03 & 2005-06 THE ACIT-2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 M/S. TATA POWER CO. LTD., CORPORATE CENTRE, B-BLOCK, 3 RD FLOOR, 34, SANT TUKARAM ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER, MUMBAI-400 009 ') % ./ *+ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT 0054A ( ), /APPELLANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI G. DAYAL -.), 0 / /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH VYAS 0 12% / DATE OF HEARING :03.07.2013 34( 0 12% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :03.07.2013 &5 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE TWO SEPARATE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI DT. 15.3.2012 PERTAINING TO A.YRS. 2002-03 AND 2005-06. AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOG ETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AN D BREVITY. ITA NOS. 3977 & 3978/M/2012 2 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 244A, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENT ITLED TO SIMPLE INTEREST, WHEREAS THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DEDUCT ONLY THE TAX ELEMENT FROM THE REFUND GENERATED EARL IER EXCLUDING THE INTEREST PORTION CONTRARY TO THE INTE NTION OF THE LEGISLATION. THIS WOULD LEAD TO EXCESS GRANT OF IN TEREST. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 1997- 98. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PER TAINING TO A.Y. 1997- 98 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 6863/MUM/2011. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BR ING ANY CONTRARY FACTS/DECISION ON RECORD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1997-98. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 3977 & 3978/M/2012 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.07.2013 . &5 0 4( % 6 7&8 03.07.2013 4 0 9 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA ) (N.K . BILLAIYA ) / PRESIDENT % &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 7& DATED 03/07/2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS &5 &5 &5 &5 0 00 0 -1! -1! -1! -1! :!(1 :!(1 :!(1 :!(1 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ; ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ; / CIT 5. !<9 -1 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9= > / GUARD FILE. &5 &5 &5 &5 / BY ORDER, .!1 -1 //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ? / @ @ @ @ * * * * (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI