DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI V. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5576/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87908 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Section: 143(3); 244A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5576/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) DY. CIT-7(3) ROOM NO. 615, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD., 76, ELECTRICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 100 ./! ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACV 2809 D ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP #$ ' % & / RESPONDENT BY : NONE ' ()* % +, / DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2015 -./ % +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.01.2015 0 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 06.06.2013, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING THE REJECTION OF I TS CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX U/S.154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.04.201 1. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR ANY ADJUDICATION APPLIC ATION STANDS RECEIVED. THIS, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, WHICH HAS BEEN PER THE ACKNOWLED GEMENT (OF APPEAL MEMO) CUM NOTICE 2 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. (OF HEARING) ISSUED AND DELIVERED PER HAND POST ON 28.08.2013. THERE IS ALSO NO LETTER OF AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL ON RECORD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDERED IT FIT AND PROPER TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER AND DECID E THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTY BEFORE US. 3. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 20 05-06. AS INDICATED EARLIER, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL IS THE VALIDITY O R OTHERWISE IN LAW OF THE DIRECTION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE INTEREST ON THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX COMPONENT OF THE PRINCIPAL REFUND AM OUNT OF RS.174.83 LACS, AS DETERMINED UPON ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT F OR THE RELEVANT YEAR VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008. THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, W ITH THE RELEVANT GROUNDS AS AGITATED BY THE REVENUE BEING REPRODUCED BELOW SO AS TO PROJECT THE ISSUE ARISING FOR ADJUDICATION: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST ON REFUND AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 244A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WIT HOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE AS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST U/S 244A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON REFUND OUT OF EXCESS SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID, W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS NOT COLLECTED THROUGH A NOTICE OF DEMAND AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATI ON TO CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION 244A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER NOTICING THE SEVERAL DECISION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, AS UNDER, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R (A.O.) TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE INTEREST U/S.244A(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON THE SELF ASSESSMENT TA X OF RS.150 LACS, FOUND TO BE PAID IN EXCESS UPON ASSESSMENT (REFER PARA 2.3 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER): (I) CIT VS. CHOLARNANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD . [2007] 294 ITR 438 (MAD.); (II) CIT VS. SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD. [2010] 325 ITR 331 (DEL); (III) ADIT(IT) VS. ASIA TODAY LTD. (IN ITA NO.1605/MUM/2010); 3 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. (IV) B.S.E.S. LTD. VS. DCIT [2008] 113 TTJ 227 (MUM); AND (V) ACIT VS. GRINDWELL NORTON LTD. [2006] 100 ITD 245 (MUM) [102 TTJ 265 (MUM)]. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTY BEFORE US, AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE. WE MAY BEGIN BY REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PROVISION: 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 TH IS SECTION, BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, IN ADDITION TO THE SAID AMOUNT, SIMPLE INT EREST THEREON CALCULATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY :- ( A ) WHERE THE REFUND IS OUT OF ANY TAX PAID BY WAY OF ADVANCE TAX OR TREATED AS PAID UNDER SECTION 199, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEA R IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE CALCULA TED AT THE RATE OF ONE-HALF PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRIS ED IN THE PERIOD FROM THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED: PROVIDED THAT NO INTEREST SHALL BE PAYABLE IF THE AMOUNT OF REFUND IS LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE TAX AS DETERMINED UNDER SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143 OR ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT; ( B ) IN ANY OTHER CASE, SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE CALCUL ATED AT THE RATE OF ONE- HALF PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH CO MPRISED IN THE PERIOD OR PERIODS FROM THE DATE OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DATES OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX OR PENALTY TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX OR PENALTY MEANS THE DATE ON AND FROM WHICH THE AMOUN T OF TAX OR PENALTY SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 156 IS PAID IN EXCESS OF SUCH DEMAND. (2) (3) . (4) . 3.2 THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE REFUND OF THE SE LF-ASSESSMENT TAX, BEING NEITHER ADVANCE TAX NOR A TAX CREDIT FOR WHICH IS ALLOWED U /S. 199, FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 244A. BOTH THE COMMENCEMENT AND THE TERMINUS DATES COMPRISING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE REFUND IS TO BE GRANTED, S TAND SPECIFIED. WHILE THE TERMINI DATE IN 4 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. ALL CASES IS THE DATE OF GRANT OF THE REFUND, THE C OMMENCEMENT DATE, FIXED U/S. 244A(1)(A) FOR PREPAID TAXES AT APRIL 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR , IS THE DATE/S OF PAYMENT OF TAX (OR PENALTY), WHICH STANDS FURTHER DEFINED PER EXPLANATION TO THE PROVISION, FOR TAX PAID OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF PREPAID TAX. THE ONLY ISSU E, THEREFORE, WOULD BE THE DATE FROM WHICH THE INTEREST IS TO BE GRANTED. THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR), ON BEING SO COMMUNICATED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, WOULD CONCEDE THERETO, ADVERTING ALBEIT OUR ATTENTION TO EXPLANATION TO THE RELEVANT PROVISION - ALSO REFERRED TO IN IT S GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE - FOR THE PURPOSE. INTEREST W OULD, HE ARGUED, EVEN AS EXPLICITLY CLARIFIED PER THE PROVISION ITSELF, RUN FROM THE DA TE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX (OR PENALTY), FOR WHICH THE REFUND IS BEING GRANTED, IS PAID OR DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN EXCESS OF THE DEMAND. THIS IS AS IT WAS INCONCEIVAB LE THAT ANYONE WOULD PAY MORE THAN WHAT STANDS DEMANDED OF HIM PER THE NOTICE OF DEMAN D U/S. 156 AND, FURTHER, THAT THE LAW PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON SUCH EXCESS AND, RATHER, O NLY ON SUCH EXCESS. THE EXCESS IS DETERMINED ONLY ON THE RAISING OF THE DEMAND, AND W HICH IS UPON THE PROCESSING OF THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 143(1), AND ISSUE OF INTIMATION PURSUANT THERETO THE INTIMATION SERVING AS A NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S. 156. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 759 (SC), HE WOULD CONTINUE, CLARIFIED THAT ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAX PAID, WHETHER BY WAY OF ADVAN CE TAX OR TAX DEDUCTED/COLLECTED AT SOURCE OR ANY OTHER, THE SAID TAX WOULD ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF THE TAX PAID ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT. BY LEGAL FICTION, IT WAS EXPLAINED, THE ADVANCE TAX BECOMES INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD. THAT IS, LOSE S ITS CHARACTER AS ADVANCE TAX FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WOU LD, LIKEWISE, ALSO ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF INCOME TAX (ON THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR ) ON ITS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY UPON PROCESSING OF THE RETURN U/S. 143(1) , SO THAT THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON ITS REFUND WOULD COMMENCE FROM THIS DATE. NONE O F THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE INFORMED, DILATE ON THIS ASPECT OF THE M ATTER, REFERRING TO OR READING THE TERM PAYMENT OF TAX AS EXPLAINED OR DEFINED PER THE PR OVISION. THE FOREGOING SUMS UP THE CONTROVERSY ARISING BEFORE US. 5 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. 3.3 THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN MODI INDUSTRIES LTD . (SUPRA) CLARIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO INTEREST ON REFUND EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY T HE STATUTE; A VIEW CONFIRMED BY IT AGAIN RECENTLY IN CIT V. GUJARAT FLOURO CHEMICALS LTD . [2013] 358 ITR 291 (SC). REFERENCE, THEREFORE, IN THE CASES OF CHOLARNANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD . (SUPRA) AND SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD . (SUPRA), RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC), SINCE EXPLAINED BY THE AP EX COURT IN GUJARAT FLOURO CHEMICALS LTD . (SUPRA), TO THE INTEREST BEING GRANTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES, WOULD, WITH RESPECT, NOT REPRESENT THE CORRECT VIEW, EVEN AS, AS POINTED OUT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS, THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WOULD STAND TO BE COVERED BY CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 244A(1 ), WHILE CLAUSE (A) OF THE PROVISION WOULD GOVERN THE INTEREST ON REFUND OF PREPAID TAX, AND QUA WHICH THE DATE OF GRANT OF INTEREST WOULD RUN FROM THE FIRST DAY OF ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ENTIRE TAX ON THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR, AND PER PREPAID TAXES ITSELF, HAVING FALL EN DUE FOR PAYMENT AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, THE LAW, PER S. 244A(1)(A), POSTULATES AN ADJ USTMENT OF THE ENTIRE PREPAID TAX THERE- AGAINST, SO THAT THE EXCESS BECOMES REFUNDABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE WITH EFFECT FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. INTEREST ON REFUND OF S ELF-ASSESSMENT TAX FALLS U/S. 244A(1)(B), TO BE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE SAID PROVISION, READ WITH EXPLANATION THERETO, DEFINING THE TERM DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX OR PENALTY, USING THE WORD MEANS, SO THAT IT IS PRIMA FACIE RESTRICTIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE OF THE MEANING TO BE ASS IGNED TO THE SAID WORDS. AN EXPLANATION , IT IS WELL SETTLED, IS AT TIMES APPENDED TO A SEC TION TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS CONTAINED THEREIN ( S. SUNDARAM PILLAI VS. PATTABHIRAMAN [1985] 1 SCC 591, PP. 611, 613; DEEPAK CHANDRA RULUDAS VS. CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR [2003] 7 SCC 66, P.71). THE EXPLANATION RATHER BECOMES A PART OF THE SECTION (REFER, INTER ALIA, BENGAL IMMUNITY CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR , AIR 1977 SC 915, P. 733). IT IS AGAIN TRITE LAW T HAT AN EXPLANATION SHOULD NORMALLY BE SO READ SO AS TO HARMONIZE WITH AND CLEAR UP ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE MAIN SECTION, AND SHOULD NOT BE CO NSTRUED SO AS TO WIDEN THE AMBIT OF THE SECTION. WE DELINEATE THE LEGAL POSITION ALSO A S PERTINENTLY, AS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR, NONE OF THE DECISIONS REFERRED BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY EXPOUND THE EXPLANATION , WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE RELEVANT TERM IS TO B E NECESSARILY READ. 6 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. THERE IS, HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, NOTHING IN THE LANG UAGE OF THE PROVISION OR THE EXPLANATION THERETO, THAT WOULD SUGGEST THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE INTEREST AS THE DATE OF THE PROCESSING OF THE RETURN QUA WHICH THE REFUND IS BEING GRANTED, I.E., AS BEING ARGUED BEFORE US IN CONTEXT OF REFUND OF SELF ASSES SMENT TAX. TRUE, IT IS ONLY UPON PROCESSING OF THE RETURN THAT THE EXCESS IS DETERMI NED UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX ASSUMES THE NATURE OF INCOME TAX ON ITS PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF (REFER: S. 140A). IF NOT TOWARD THE SAME, WHAT FOR, ONE MAY ASK, THE SAME IS PAID F OR OR TOWARD ? WHEN THE ENTIRE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR FALLS DUE FOR PAYMENT AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, SO THAT THE EXCESS OF ADVANCE TAX OR TDS/TCS PAID IS LIABLE FOR REFUND WI TH INTEREST FROM THE FOLLOWING DATE, I.E., THE FIRST DAY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE PAY MENT OF TAX, EITHER AS SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX OR OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF PREPAID TAX, WHICH WOUL D BE ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, WOULD SURELY BE FROM TH E DATE OF ITS PAYMENT. IT IS, IN FACT, INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE WOULD PAY IN EXCESS OF THE D EMAND AS RAISED UPON HIM AND, TWO, THAT THE LAW ACTUALLY PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON SUCH PAYMENT! THE SAME, WHICH CAN EVEN OTHERWISE BE CONSIDERED AS ONLY EXCEPTIONAL; RATHER , WOULD NOT FALL TO BE REGARDED AS PAYMENT OF TAX (OR PENALTY), I.E., ON FACTS, ON WHI CH THE REVENUE IS ALWAYS FREE TO CHALLENGE A PARTICULAR PAYMENT, FOR SURELY THE PAYM ENT TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, AS CONTEMPLATED, IS ONLY QUA AND NOT DEHORS ANY LIABILITY (FOR THE SAME), AND CAN NOT BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ITS REFUND SUBSEQUENTLY ALON G WITH INTEREST. EVEN WHERE THE REFUND ARISES ON THE REDUCTION IN DEMAND PURSUANT TO AN AP PELLATE ORDER, THE REDUCED DEMAND VIDE THE APPEAL EFFECT GIVING ORDER IS OF A LATER D ATE WHILE THE EXCESS PAYMENT STANDS MADE EARLIER, I.E., ON AN ANTERIOR DATE. THE PAYMEN T OF THE AMOUNT BEING REFUNDED IS THUS ALWAYS PRIOR TO THE SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION OF AND , THUS, OF IT BEING FOUND IN EXCESS. THAT IN FACT IS THE REASON OR THE RAISON DETRE FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE AMOUNT PAID IN EXCESS OF THE DEMAND, THOUGH DET ERMINED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PAYMENT, BEING SO IN THE VERY NATURE AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENT S, WOULD THUS ONLY BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT IS ACTUALLY MADE. THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE EXCESS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS SO FOUND, I.E., TO BE IN EXCESS; THE PAYMENT 7 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. OF INTEREST BEING EVEN OTHERWISE COMPENSATORY IN CH ARACTER. THE EXPLANATION , IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, IS WORDED IN THE MANNER IT IS, AS IT I S INTENDED TO COVER ALL OR EVERY SITUATION INASMUCH AS THE PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT CONTEMPLATE S RAISING OF DEMAND IN EVERY CASE. WE HAVE, IT WOULD BE APPARENT, ACCORDED A MEANING T O THE EXPLANATION TO S. 244A(1)(B) WHICH HARMONIZES WITH THE LANGUAGE EMPLO YED IN THE SECTION. THE DIFFERENT MEANING TO ITS LANGUAGE, SOUGHT TO BE ASCRIBED TO I T WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISION IN MODI INDUSTRIES LTD . (SUPRA), IS TO OUR MIND MISPLACED. THE APEX COURT WAS IN THAT CASE EXPLAINING THE CONCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE TERM TAX ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE EXTANT LAW HOWEVER PROVIDES FOR GRANT OF INTEREST WITH SEP ARATE COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINI DATES FOR PREPAID TAXES AND OTHER TAXES, SO THAT TH E SAID ELUCIDATION BY THE APEX COURT MAY NOT BE OF MUCH ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE, WHICH HAS NOT CHARGED THE PAYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 150 LACS, THE ENTIRE OF WHICH STANDS TO BE REFUNDED, AS BEING NOT BONA FIDE AND, THUS, AS BEING NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH. 3.4 FURTHER, IN-AS-MUCH AS EVERY RETURN IS TO BE MA NDATORILY PROCESSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, I.E., IRRESPECTIVE OF IT BEING, OR NOT SO , SUBSEQUENTLY SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT BY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2), IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE INTEREST, AS BEING PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE, WAS NOT PAID OR ALLOWED THERETO ON THE PROCESSING OF ITS RETURN U/S. 143(1) ITSELF. IN FACT, IF AND WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY SO, THE INTEREST ON ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WOULD ONLY BE ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT, I.E., ON THE ADDITIONAL REFUND, OR WOULD EVEN BE LIABLE TO BE WI THDRAWN, AS WHERE THE TAX LIABILITY ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT FALLS BELOW THAT DETERMINED ON P ROCESSING U/S.143(1). THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ADDITIONAL REFUND IS GRANTED SHALL BE FRO M THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE CORRESPONDING (ADDITIONAL) TAX OR APRIL 1 OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE DATE OF THE REFUND. THE PERIOD OF WITHDRAWAL (O F INTEREST) SHALL BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE REFUND WAS INITIALLY ALLOWED IN EXCESS. THE LOSS OF INTEREST TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE SAID PERIOD IS TA KEN CARE OF BY SEC. 234D. IF, HOWEVER, AS IT APPEARS, NO INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED ON THE PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S. 143(1), THE SAME WOULD RUN UNINTERRUPTEDLY FROM THE DATE OF PAY MENT OF THE TAX TO THE DATE OF GRANT 8 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. OF THE REFUND OF THE CORRESPONDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT . WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT WHILE INTEREST IS TO BE IN ALL CASES ALLOWED FOR THIS PERIOD, THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT COULD WELL BE DIFFERENT, I.E., AS DETERMINED ON PROCESSING AND THAT UPON ASSESSMENT SUBSEQUENTLY. SO, HOWEVER, WHERE NO INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE FIRST INS TANCE, IT IS ONLY THE REFUND AMOUNT WORKED OUT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEMAND DETERMINED ON ASSESSMENT THAT WOULD OBTAIN. RATHER, AS WOULD BE QUITE CLEAR, IT IS ONLY THE INT EREST WITH REFERENCE TO THIS AMOUNT THAT WOULD PREVAIL EVEN WHERE INTEREST HAD BEEN GRANTED EARLIER, I.E., ON THE PROCESSING OF RETURN U/S. 143(1). 3.5 FINALLY, IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DEBATABLE AND, THUS, OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SEC. 154. HOWEVER, AS SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFI ED HEREINBEFORE, THE READING OF THE ORDER, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 244A(1) IS PATENTLY CLE AR AND ADMITS OF NO DEBATE. EVEN THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE REVENUE WITH REFERENCE TO TH E EXPLANATION THERETO ARISES ONLY OUT OF A MISREADING OF THE SAME. THE MATTER, AS FURTHER EXPLAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN B.S.E.S. LTD. (SUPRA), IS APPEALABLE. 3.6 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE, FOR THE REASONS AF ORE-STATED, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PRINCIPLE. THE AO SHAL L VERIFY IF ANY INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROCESSING OF ITS RETURN FOR THE YEAR OR NOT, AND ALLOW INTEREST U/S. 244A(1)(B) ON THE SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 150 LA CS ACCORDINGLY. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ON THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 13 TH , 2015 SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' 1* MUMBAI; 2( DATED : 13.01.2015 ).(. ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 9 ITA NO. 5576/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) DY. CIT VS. TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$ ' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 3+ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 3+ / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6)7 #+(8 , , 8/ , ' 1* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :; <* / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' 1* / ITAT, MUMBAI