UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI V. DCIT LTU LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

ITA 572/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4190 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 244A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSA IN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 572 & 573/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 & 2000-2001) UNION BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021. / VS. ACIT, LTU, CENTRE 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, 28 TH FLOOR, CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI-400 005. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACU 0564G ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C NARESH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GM DOSS / DATE OF HEARING : 24/02/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/04/2016 $% / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J. M.: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- LTU DATED 25.10.2012 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 & 2000-2001. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE I DENTICAL, EXCEPT FOR YEAR OF ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE; THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT 2. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.572/MUM/13 (A.Y. 1999-2000), AND THE OUTCOME OF THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER ANA LOGOUS APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.573/MUM/13 (A.Y.2000-2001) AND FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)(CI T-A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) IN P ASSING ORDER PURPORTEDLY GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF ITAT, WHEREAS ON FACTS NO ORDER BY WAY OF DIRECTION OR REMAND WAS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IT AT AND HENCE NO ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO. 1.2 THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEREAS THE HON'BLE ITA T DECIDED A MA FILED BY DEPARTMENT SEEKING TO 'MODIFY ORDER O F ITA T' IN THE FAVOR OF DEPARTMENT BY MERELY ALLOWING THE MA WITHOUT ACTUAL LY MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN WHATEVER MANNER IT INTENDED TO DO , IT CANNOT BE SAID THE ORDER OF ITAT WAS ONE OF DIRECTION OR REMAND TO THE AO. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE ALTERNATE GROUND VIZ 'THE AMOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS HAD BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND REDUCED FROM LOANS A ND ADVANCES, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT AMOUNTED TO WRITE OFF AND NOT MERE PROVISION AS UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT V VIJAYA BANK 323ITR 166 (SC) AND FOLLOWED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., (ITA 1062 OF 2008) DATED 30.08.2011. SINCE THE SAME IS A LLOWABLE HE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE GROUND INTO CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE D ON MERITS. 3 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT 3. THE ID.CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE INTEREST DUE TO THE APPELLANT AS HELD BY THE DE CISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD (280 ITR 643). THE CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE APEX COURT DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE WHICH IS UNWARRANTED. 4. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S 2 20(2) IS CHARGEABLE WHEREAS ON FACTS SINCE THE TAX ON INCOME FINALLY DETERMINED WAS LESS THAN THE ADVANCE TAX AND TDS AND THAT NO DEMAND COULD HAVE B EEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME, THE QUES TION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) DOERS NOT ARISE. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND AND OR VAR Y THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL THE ASESSEE HAS FILED A DDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)(CIT-A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) IN P ASSING ORDER PURPORTEDLY GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF ITAT, WHEREAS ON FACTS NO ORDER BY WAY OF DIRECTION OR REMAND WAS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT AND HENCE NO ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHEREA S THE HON'BLE IT AT DECIDED A MA FILED BY DEPARTMENT SEEKING TO 'MODIFY ORDER O F IT A T' IN THE FAVOR OF 4 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT DEPARTMENT BY MERELY ALLOWING THE MA WITHOUT ACTUAL LY MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN WHATEVER MANNER IT INTENDED TO DO , IT CANNOT BE SAID THE ORDER OF ITA T WAS ONE OF DIRECTION OR REMAND TO TH E AO. 2.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD CIT OUGH T NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE ALTERNATE GROUND VIZ 'THE AMOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS HAD BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND REDUCED FROM LOANS A ND ADVANCES, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT AMOUNTED TO WRITE OFF AND NOT MERE PROVISION AS UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT V VIJAYA BANK 323 ITR 166 (SC ) AND FOLLOWED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S YOKOGAW A INDIA LTD., (ITA 1062 OF 2008) DATED 30.08.2011. SINCE THE SAME IS A LLOWABLE HE OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE GROUND INTO CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE D ON MERITS. 3.1 THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE INTEREST DUE TO THE APPELLANT AS HELD BY THE DE CISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD (280 ITR 643). THE CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE APEX COURT DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE WHICH IS UNWARRANTED. 3.2. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE METHO D OF WORKING OF INTEREST BY THE AO IS INCORRECT. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT THE AO IN THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST ASSUMED THAT THE BALANCE TO BE REFUNDED IS ALWAYS THE INTEREST PORTION AND THE TAX PORTION IS PRESUME D TO HAVE BEEN REFUNDED WHICH IS UNTENABLE SINCE WHILE CHARGING INTEREST FR OM THE ASSESSEES, THE DEPARTMENT FIRST ADJUSTS THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS IN TEREST SO THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE REMAINS OUTSTANDING AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO 5 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT CHARGE INTEREST TILL THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING IS PAID . BUT WHEN IT COMES TO GRANTING OF INTEREST ON REFUND OF TAXES, THE REFUND S ARE FIRST ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE TAXES AND THEN THE BALANCE TOWARDS INTEREST. 3.3 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE M ETHOD FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN THE SAME MANNER AS FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPUTING INTEREST SINCE THE REFUND GRANTED IS FIRST ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INTEREST FIRST AND THEN THE BALANCE IF ANY TOWARDS TAX AMOUNT. 4.1 THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST U/S 220(2) IS CHARGEABLE WHEREAS ON FACTS SINCE THE TAX ON INCOME FINALLY DETERMINED WAS LESS THAN THE ADVANCE TAX AND TDS AND THAT NO DEMAND COULD HAVE B EEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME, THE QUES TION OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) DOERS NOT ARISE. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND AND OR VAR Y THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOW FILED, ARE IN CONNECTION AND CONTINUATION OF MAIN GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SU BMISSIONS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL ARE LEGAL IN NATURE AND NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AS THEY ARE MEREL Y EXPLANATORY TO THE MAIN 6 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS PUBLIC SECTOR BANK. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE AO PASSED AN ORD ER U/S 143(3) ON 19/02/2002 IN WHICH COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS, THE PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.113,56,26,000/- WAS ADDED BAC K. THE ASSESEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO. THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE I TS ORDER IN ITA NO. 5104/MUM/2004 DATED 09/05/2008 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. U SHA MARTIN INDUSTRIES LTD. 104 ITD 249 (KOL)SB. SUBSEQUENTLY BY FINANCE ACT, 2 009 A RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO SECTION 115JB, ACCORDING TO W HICH THE PROVISION MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET WAS TO BE ADDE D BACK IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. THE DEPARTMENT FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION (MA) BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN MA NO. 84/ MUM/2010 DATED 19/11/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5104/MUM2004 DATE D 09/05/2008 ALLOWED THE MA, FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO WHILE GIVING EF FECT TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT PASSED THE ORDER ADDING BACK RS.113,56,26,000/ - IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. 7 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25.10.2012. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE FI LED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. GROUND NO. 1&2 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS .1.1, 1.2 AND 2.1: 4. SINCE ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND INTER- RELATED THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME THROUGH THE PRESENT COMMON ORDER. 4.1 WHILE HEARING THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE NOTICED THA T LD AR REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN PASSING THE ORDER AND THE LD. AR ALSO ATTACKED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRM ING THE ORDER OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE, IT IS NEC ESSARY TO EVALUATE THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE . IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT INITIAL LY THE AO PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) ON 09.08.2002 IN WHICH IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE BOOK PROFITS, THE PROVISION MADE FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 113,56,26,000/- WAS ADDED BACK. THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO UPHELD T HE ACTION OF AO. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE IT AT AND THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 5104/MUM2004 NO. DATED 09/05/2 008 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT WHILE RELYING THE CASE OF JCIT VS. USHA MARTIN INDUSTRIES LTD. SUBSEQUENTLY BY FINANCE ACT, RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO SECTION115JB, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PROVISION MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET S WAS TO BE ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. THE DEPARTMENT FILED MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDE R IN MA NO. 84/MUM/2010 DATED 19.11.2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5104/MUM/20 04 DATED 09.05.2008 ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. TH E AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED IN MA ADDING BACK RS. 113,56,26,000/- IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS. 4.2 WE HAVE ANALYSED THE ORDER OF AO AND WE HAVE NO TICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY AO DATED 01.03.11 IS AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO I TAT ORDER. IN THIS RESPECT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT IN VIEW OF ITAT ORDER IN MA NO. 84/MUM/2010 DATED 19.11.2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5104/MUM/2004 DATED 09.05.2008 REVISED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING COMPUTED AND PROVISION 9 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSET WAS ADDED BACK TO THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115B OF THE ACT. 4.3 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE SAID ISSUE AND PASSED FOLLOWING ORDE RS: FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, IT IS VER Y CLEAR THAT THE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO MA WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON MERITS DISMISSING T HE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS. THEREFORE, THE AO RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE HONBLE ITATS DECISION IN M.A. COMPUTED THE PROFIT S AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON SOME OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF KERA LA & KARNATAKA & HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF VIJA YA BANK (323 ITR 626). IN MY OPINION AT THIS STAGE, PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS BECAUS E THE LIMITED ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE AO WAS RIGHT IN GIVING EF FECT ORDER TO THE HONBLE ITAT F BENCH DECISION OR NOT. THE DECISIO N OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT SINCE THE SAME IS AS PER THE DIR ECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN MA. THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. 10 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT 4.4 AFTER ANALYZING THE AFORE MENTIONED ORDER PASSE D BY CIT(A) WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH OR DEVIATE FROM IT, AS THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO WHO WAS MERELY GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORD ERS OF THE ITAT. THE LD. AR REPRESENTING THE ASESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR AND ON VERIFYING THE RECORDS, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS BEING REPRESENTED AT THE TIME OF MA PROCEEDINGS AND NOT ONLY THIS, THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTIONS IN MA AND THE AFORE MENTIONED MA WAS DEC IDED ON THE MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. I N ADDITION, THERETO, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY T HE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FACTUALLY TENABLE. WE FIND THA T THE CIT(A) HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO GIVING E FFECT TO THE ORDERS OF HONBLE ITAT. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEES GROUNDS STAND DISMIS SED. 4.5 HOWEVER, DURING THE ARGUMENT ON OUR ENQUIRY IT WAS CONCEDED BY LD. AR THAT THEY HAVE ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF MA NO. 84/MUM/2010 DATED 19/11/2010 PASSED BY ITAT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT. THIS AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF FACTS ON THE PART OF LD. AR AS HE HA S NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID FACT BEFORE US AND IT IS ONLY ON THE QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR CONCEDED AT 11 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT THE BAR IN THE PRESENCE OF DR THAT THEY HAVE ALREAD Y PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TH AT WHEN THE SIMILAR MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THEN THE ASSE SSEE OUGHT NOT TO AGITATE THE SAME ISSUE BEFORE US I.E. AT MULTIPLE FORUM. ONCE A HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM I.E. THE HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE IS SEIZED OF THE MATTER ON AN ISSUE, THEN THE TRIBUNAL, CANNOT ADJUDICATE ON THAT ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, CON SIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IN THE MATTER DISMISS THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL. GROUND NO. 3 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.3 .1 TO 3.3: 5. THE SAID GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY LD. AR IS IN RESPECT OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE I.T. ACT AND AFTER GOING THROUGH ORDERS PASS ED BY LD. CIT(A), WE FOUND THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS IN DETAILS, LD. CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT INTEREST ( IF ANY) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 244 A AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED IN THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND SINCE THE REQUIRED DIRECTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) TH EREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 12 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT GROUND NO.4 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.4. 1: 6. THIS GROUND RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220( 2) OF I.T. ACT HAS BEEN DEALT BY CIT(A) AND THE OPERATIVE PARA IS AS UNDER: THIS GROUND RELATED TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN F ROM THE COMPUTATION SHEET OF THE A.O. AND ALSO THAT ON FEW OCCASIONS, B Y VIRTUE OF EXCESS GRANT OF REFUND, THE AMOUNT WAS DUE TO THE GOVT. FO RM THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER ANY AMOUNT IS DUE T O BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE AMOUNT OF THE GO VERNMENT FOR CERTAIN PERIODS AND IT IS NATURAL COROLLARY THAT AM OUNT TO BE COLLECTED ALONG WITH THE INTEREST. THEREFORE, I DO NOT SEE AN Y MISTAKE IN THE GIVING EFFECT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AM OUNT HAS TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH INTEREST. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD AS INTEREST HAS BEEN CH ARGED CORRECTLY. THUS, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6.1 WE HAVE ANALYSED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CI T(A) AND WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON PROPER REASONIN G AND A SPEAKING JUDICIOUS ORDER WHEREIN, CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS NOT FOUND ANY MISTAKE IN 13 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT GIVING EFFECT ORDER OF AO AND THEREFORE IT WAS CORR ECTLY HELD BY CIT(A) THAT AMOUNT HAS TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH IN TEREST. SINCE NO NEW FACTS OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US BY LD. AR TO CONTROV ERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT( A) AND SO WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6.2 IN THE NET RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP ITA NO. 573/MUM/13 (A.Y. 2000-2 001) 7. SINCE THE GROUNDS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 572/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 1999- 2000). WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1999- 2000 THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION GIVEN IN THE AFORE MENTIONED APPEAL, W E ALSO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME REASONS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE D ISMISSED. 14 ITA NO. 572&573/M/13 (A.Y.1999-2000&2000-01) UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. ACIT ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH APRIL, 2016 SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :06.04.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI