DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI V. TECH MAHINDRA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4057/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H P MAHAJANI
• Section: 143(3); 244A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !'# , $ % BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLA IYA, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 4057/MUM/2012 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE DCIT 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 M/S. TECH MAHINDRA LTD., GATEWAY BLDG., APOLO BUNDER, MUMBAI-400 001 ' $ ./ () ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACM 3484F ( '* /APPELLANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR +,'* . - /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.P. MAHAJANI . /0$ / DATE OF HEARING :8.07.2013 12& . /0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :10.07.2013 3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI DT.22.3.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 003-04. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION TO COMPUTE INTEREST U/S. 244A O N THE AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX P AID AND DIT RELIEF FROM THE TAX PAYABLE. ITA NO.4057/M/2012 2 3. THE ISSUE FINDS PLACE AT PAGE-4 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER IN WHICH THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE RELATING TO INTEREST U/S. 244A WHEREIN THE AO HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (AS) ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED THE INTEREST ONLY ON THE REFUND ARISING OUT OF TAXES PAID U/S. 115WJ, 206C OR BY WA Y OF ADVANCE TAX OR ON TDS. EVEN FOR A MOMENT, IF THE A SSESSEES CASE FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ANY OTHER CASE, AS IN CLAUSE (B) ABOVE, THE WORDS ANY OTHER CASE SHOULD BE READ EJUSDEM GENERIS, MEANING THEREBY IT SHOULD BE READ AS THE TAXES PAID IN INDIA. FOR THE REASON THAT THE SECTI ONS QUOTED IN CLAUSE (A) ABOVE OR WITH RESPECT TO TAXES PAID O R COLLECTED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND NOT UNDER ANY OTHER ACT OUTSIDE INDIA. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ON THIS COUNT ARE REJECTED. THE INTEREST U/S. 244A IS, THE REFORE, RESTRICTED TO THE REFUND ARISING OUT OF THE TAXES P AID, NET OF DIT RELIEF. THE EXCESS INTEREST GRANTED U/S. 244A IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS FINDINGS OF THE AO, THE ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-4, PAGE-7 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. CIT( A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: GROUND 4 IS REGARDING REDUCING THE INTEREST U/S. 2 44A. THE REFUND TO THE APPELLANT IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF TAX PAID LESS TAX PAYABLE. AS THE DIT RELIEF G OES ON TO REDUCE THE TAX PAYABLE, THE CORRECT WAY IS TO REDUC E THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX PAID AND DIT RELIEF FROM THE TAX PAYABLE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT TO BE REFUN DED THE INTEREST U/S. 244A NEEDS TO BE COMPUTED. THE AO SH ALL RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST U/S. 244A WHILE GIVING EFFEC T TO THIS ORDER. 5. IT IS THE SAY OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.4057/M/2012 3 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A DET AILED TAX COMPUTATION STATEMENT EXPLAINING HOW THE AO HAS ERR ED IN WITHDRAWING THE INTEREST GIVEN U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY HIS OR DER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO ALLOWED INTEREST U/S. 244A AT RS. 1,29,82,28 5/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCED TO RS. 73,01,087/- FOR THE REA SONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE AT PARA -3. HOWEVER, WE AGREE WITH TH E FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DIT RELIEF GOES ON TO REDUCE THE TAX PA YABLE. AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VERY CORRECTLY GIVEN THE FINDINGS MENTIO NED HEREINABOVE AT PARA-4, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAM PER OR INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2013 . 3 . 2& $ 4 56 10.7.2013 2 . 7 SD/- SD/ (I.P. BANSAL ) (N. K. BILLAIYA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5 DATED 10/07/2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO.4057/M/2012 4 3 3 3 3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :7 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7; < / GUARD FILE. 3 3 3 3 / BY ORDER, , / +/ //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > ( ( ( ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI