RANCHOD DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6295/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101254 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1984-1985
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA D SHAH
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 244A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 6277/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTR0817Q & ITA. NO. 6282/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) SHIV DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AAMTS2808L & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 2 ITA. NO. 6286/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) MAHADEV DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AADTM3001E & ITA. NO. 6287/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) NARAYAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AABTN7276Q & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 3 ITA. NO. 6288/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) RAYMAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTR0815N & ITA. NO. 6289/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) MUKUND DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AADTM3003G & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 4 ITA. NO. 6290/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) MANMOHAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AADTM3005A & ITA. NO. 6294/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) MURARI DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AADTM3002H & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 5 ITA. NO. 6295/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) RANCHOD DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTR0816R & ITA. NO. 6300/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) RAM DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTR0834K & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 6 ITA. NO. 6301/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) TARAK DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTT1826F & ITA. NO. 6302/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) NILKANTH DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AABTN7277R & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 7 ITA. NO. 6303/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) MURLIDHAR DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AADTM3004B & ITA. NO. 6328/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) KRISHNA DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AACTK0953C & ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 8 ITA. NO. 6330/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85) DIVAKAR DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST C/O. SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 17, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 APP ELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(2)(1), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AABTD7891H / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI RAJENDRA D. SHAH, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29.09.2015 ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OF SAME GROUP FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT FROM THE RE SPECTIVE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-23, MUMBAI, DATED 29.08.2013 FOR A LL APPEALS ON SIMILAR ISSUE. SO, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y WAY OF COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 9 2. IN ITA NO. 6277/MUM/2013 FOR A.Y. 1984-85, IN CA SE OF RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST, ASSESSEE H AS FILED APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN THE POINTS OF LAW AND FACTS. 2) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTERE ST ON REFUND OF RS. 40,442/-. 3) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INTER EST ON REFUND OF RS.1L,138/-. 4) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INTER EST ON INTEREST. 3. ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY OF K. KACHRADAS PATEL SP ECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, HAVING 0.5% SHARE IN PARENT TRUST, AS PER SCHEDULE-1 BEFORE CIT(A) AND FORMING PART OF TRUST DEED OF SAID TRUST. ASSESSEE TRUST DERIVES 0.5% DEFERRED SHARE ALSO AS PER SCHEDULE-II BEFORE CIT(A) AND FORMING PART OF TRUST DEED OF PARENT TRUST. 4. FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ENTITLEMENT TO IN TEREST ON REFUND OF RS.40,442/-. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR A.Y. 1984-85 WITH CONCERNED INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUM BAI SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,10,290/- AND PAID TAXE S THEREON OF RS.51,580/-. ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 10 4.1 ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME OF RS.1,10,290/ - BY INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.02.1987. THE SAID INCOME WAS ASSESSED TO TAX ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS T HE SAME WAS ASSESSED TO TAX ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN CASE OF MAIN TRUST, I.E. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST. THE MAIN TRUST WAS AGITATING THE MATTER IN HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUMS. ULTIMATELY, MAIN TRUST I.E. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST SETTLED THE DISPUTE WITH DEPARTMENT BY MAKING A DECLARATION OF SAID INCOME UNDER K.V.S.S. 4.2 ON SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME IN HANDS OF MAIN TRUST WAS PROTECTIVELY ASSESSED IN CASE OF ASSESSEE I.E. BENEFICIARY TRUST AND SAME WAS DELETED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 16(5), MUMBAI VIDE ORDER U/S.155 OF INCOME TAX ACT DATED 28.11.2000. THUS TOTAL INCOME IN CASE OF THI S ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT NIL AS PER ABOVE ORDER DATED 28.11. 2000. 4.3 ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED REFUND THEREON AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: TOTAL TAXES PAID RS.51,580/- LESS: REFUNDED VIDE ORDER DT.29/2/88 RS.40,442/- BAL. REFUND DUE RS.11,138/- ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED REFUND OF RS.11,138/- AS PER ABOVE CALCULATION. 4.4 SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT DATED 07/12/2000 SEEKING FOLLOWI NG REFUNDS; ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 11 1) REFUND OF RS.40,442/-, ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED IN CASE OF MAIN TRUST, ALONG WITH DUE INTEREST. 2) INTEREST ON REFUND AS ALSO INTEREST ON INTEREST. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 05.10.2012 FO R INTEREST ON REFUND U/S.244A TILL THE DATE OF REFUND ORDER FOR A .Y. 1984-85. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN ORDER U/S.154 THAT REFUND FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER U/S.155(2) D ATED 28.11.2000 BUT INTEREST ON THE SAME WAS NOT GIVEN A ND IT WAS FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION. 4.5 ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S.154 DATED 05 .12.2012 REJECTING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE . THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INTEREST OF ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ON PAGE 2 OF ITS ORDER: 'REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTE REST U/S.214/244A OF THE I.T. ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON T HE REFUND AMOUNT, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THE REFUND H AS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF DECLARATION MADE UNDER THE KVS S BY THE MAIN TRUST, I.E. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FA MILY TRUST. BY FILING THE DECLARATION UNDER KVSS, THE MAI N TRUST GOT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYING TO THE INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT, THE INTEREST ON THE DISPUTED INCOME. A S A RESULT OF THIS KVSS DECLARATION, REFUND HAS ARISEN IN THE CASE OF THE BENEFICIARY TRUST. AS THE MAIN TRUST HA S NOT PAID INTEREST ON THE DISPUTED INCOME, THE BENEFICIARY TR UST CANNOT BE ALLOWED INTEREST ON THE CONSEQUENTIAL REF UND THAT AROSE. IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.' 'FURTHER, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT NO CLAIM FOR THE SAID ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 12 REFUND WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THE CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS MADE ONLY AFTER THE KVSS DECLARATION IN T HE CASE OF THE MAIN TRUST WAS FILED AND ACCEPTED. THE DECISION TO OPT FOR THE KVSS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND A NY FALL OUT THEREOF CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. AS THE REFUND HAS BEEN ARISEN CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE KVSS DECLARATION FILED BY THE MAIN TRUST, AND DELAY IN T HE CLAIM AND ISSUE OF REFUND IS ATTRIBUTABLE ENTIRELY TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A (2) OF THE ACT, NO INTEREST U/S.244A I S PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE.' 4.6 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MADE BY IT IN ITS PET ITION U/S.154. IN APPEAL, CIT(A) WITH REGARDS TO ALLOWABILITY OF F UND OF TAX PAID OF RS.40,442/-, ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER HELD IN HIS ORDER U/S.154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 28.11 .2000, DETERMINED THE REFUND OF RS.51,580/- DUE TO ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, REFUND OF RS.11,138/- WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF RS.40,442/- ALLEGED TO HAS BEEN REFUNDED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.1988. HOWEVER, NO PROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT OR ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSE SSEE. HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PRO OF OF SUCH PAYMENT OR ADJUSTMENT OF RS.40,442/- TO ASSESSEE OR IN ALTERNATIVE HE MAY BE INSTRUCTED TO REFUND THE SAID AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS HI MSELF ADMITTED THAT IN INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM, REFUN D OF RS.40,442/- HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ALREADY REF UNDED. HENCE ACCORDING TO CIT(A), IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSIT ION THAT ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 13 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE REFUND AMOUNT AN D HAS AGREED THAT SUCH REFUND IS PAYABLE TO ASSESSEE. TH US, ASSESSEE MAY APPROACH CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER OR OTHER C ONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO ESTABLISH THAT REFUND HAD NOT BEEN R ECEIVED AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND COMPUTED BY HIM. IN VIEW OF ABOV E, CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL POINT. 4.7 BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SU BMITTED THAT UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON REFUND OF R S.40,442/- AND ELIGIBILITY FOR INTEREST ON REFUND OF RS.11,138 /- AS RAISED BY GROUND NO.2 & 3 BEFORE US. HE POINTED OUT THAT THI S ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN CASE OF SIMILARLY PLACED TRUST I.E. VAIBHAVI DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST VS. ITO 12 (2)(1) AND OTHER APPEALS BY ITAT F MUMBAI BENCH BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THE PRESENT CASE S ASSESSEES ARE COMMON TO THE ASSESSEES WITH REGARD T O WHOM, EARLIER SPECIAL BENCH HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE T HAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND. SPE CIAL BENCH ORDER WAS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AS WELL AS ON THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHI CH WAS INVOKED BY THE CIT TO DENY THESE ASSESSES BENEFIT O F INTEREST WHICH WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY THE AO. SPECIAL BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND RE LEVANT OBSERVATION OF SPECIAL BENCH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPR ODUCED ABOVE. ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 14 7.1 THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH BEFORE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS NOT ONLY UPHELD THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH ON THE ISSUE REGARDING GRANT OF INTER EST BUT HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT DRAG THE ASSESSEESS TO UNNECES SARY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. IN SPITE OF SUCH A WARNING GI VEN BY THE COURT TO THE REVENUE, THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN IN THE P RESENT CASES HAS DRAGGED THESE ASSESSEES IN LITIGATION FOR NON- GRANTING OF THE INTEREST. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES AND THOSE WHICH WERE DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL B ENCH AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ARE PARI-MATERIA AND THIS FACT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE AO HAS AD OPTED A VIEW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND AS HE HAS AGAIN MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY REJECTING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, TH E CONDUCT OF THE AO IS AGAINST THE DECISION RENDERED BY SPECI AL BENCH. SIMILARLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS DISREGARDED THE SPECIAL B ENCH BY SIMPLY HOLDING THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE APPLICABL E. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A) THE SAID ORDER WAS IN RESPE CT OF SECTION 244A. WE DON'T FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN SUCH DISREGARD SHOWN BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE FA CTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUCH CONDUCT OF THE REVE NUE IS NEITHER ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED POSITION OF LAW S ETTLED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUMS NOR IT IS APPRECIABLE FO R THE REASON THAT HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE REVENUE NOT TO DRAG THE ASSESSEE IN UNNECESSARY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. 7.2 THE ISSUE REGARDING GRANT OF INTEREST TO THE AS SESSEES IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENC H AS WELL AS HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTENDED TO BE REVERSED OR MODIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 15 THE REVENUE TO GRANT THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE A ND GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. FAC TS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING, ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO PAY INTEREST ON REFUND OF RS.40,442/- T ILL 29.02.1988 AND INTEREST ON REFUND OF RS.11,138/- TI LL 28.11.2000 AS PRAYED. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6. SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NOS. 6282, 6286, 6287 , 6288, 6289, 6290, 6294, 6295, 6300, 6301, 6302, 6303, 632 8 & 6330/MUM/2013. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING S AME REASONING, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT R ELIEF AS GRANTED BY US IN ITA NO.6277/MUM/2013 IN CASE OF RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST AS DISCUSS ED. 7. AS A RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY ALL ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 29/09/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ITA NO. 6277/MUM/13 (RADHAKRISHAN DISCRETIONARY FAM ILY TRUST VS. ITO) AND OTHER 14 APPEALS. PAGE 16 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. !- $%&' / CIT (A) 5. )*+& ,--, $%&' $, / / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +12 34' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 5 , 6%/8 % & $%&' $, / 9