BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6504/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88649 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDERJIT SINGH DR
• Assessee Lawyers: C NARESH F C A BANK OF INDIA
• Section: 244A; 260A

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI , . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6218/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 DCIT-2(1), ROOM NO.561,5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. BANK OF INDIA, STAR HOUSE, PLOT C-5, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURAL COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 ( / REVENUE) ( #$%& ' /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AACB0472C ITA NO.6504/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 BANK OF INDIA, STAR HOUSE, PLOT C-5, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURAL COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. DCIT-2(1), ROOM NO.561,5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( #$%& ' /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AACB0472C / REVENUE BY SHRI SURINDERJIT SINGH. -DR #$%& ' / ASSESSEE BY): SHRI C. NARESH F.C.A. BANK OF INDIA , 2 # ) ' * / DATE OF HEARING : 26/03/2015 +, ) ' * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/03/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THESE ARE CROSS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 21/08/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.6504/MUM/2013), THE FIRST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO NOT ALLOWING INTEREST SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAYMENT OF RS.50,00,00,000/- AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28/05 /2013 BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW INTEREST ON SELF ASSESSMENT TAX O F RS.50 CRORES, PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, TO REDUCE THE INCOME TAX DEMAND ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRI EF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CALCULATING INTEREST U/ S 244A ON REFUNDS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE BANK DID NOT ALLOW INTE REST ON SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.50 CRORES PAID ON 25/04/2 003. BANK OF INDIA , 3 WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MERCK LIMI TED (THE TAX PAYER) BY HOLDING THAT THE TAX PAYER IS ENTITLE D TO RECEIVE INTEREST ON THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID, PAYABLE F ROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF P AYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. THE HONBLE COURT FURTHER HEL D THAT THE TAX PAYER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE INTEREST ON TH E INTEREST DUE ON REFUND. THE LD. DR, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E DECISION FROM HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ENGINEERS INDIA LTD. (ITA 300/2012 ORDER DATED 26/02/2015), WHEREIN, ON APPEAL, FILED BY THE DEPAR TMENT U/S 260A OF THE ACT, ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 30/09/2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.5392/DEL./2010 HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT ON THE EXCESS SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID U/S 140A. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 17/11/2014 (WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2000). RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISIONS FROM HON BLE APEX COURT IN TATA CHEMICALS (2014) 363 ITR 658, CIT VS VIJYA BANK (2011) 338 ITR 489 (KAR.) AND CIT VS SUTLEJ IN DUSTRIES LTD. (2010) 325 ITR 331 (DEL.) HELD THAT INTEREST I S PAYABLE FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX OF SELF ASSESSMENT TO THE DATE OF REFUND OF THE AMOUNT U/S 244A OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DECISIO N FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS CIT (W.P. NO.8 23 OF 2000) ORDER DATED 17/11/2014. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. BANK OF INDIA , 4 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO NOT GRANTING CREDIT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE TAX PAID BY THE ERSTWHILE BOI AS SET COMPANY MANAGEMENT LTD. OF RS.57 LAKH. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT BY THE LD. AR IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND R AISED. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVE D AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALREADY DI RECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE PROPER AND LAWFUL EFF ECT, THEREFORE, HOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED IS NOT KNO WN. 3.2. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO NOT GRANTING INTER EST ON REFUND DUE WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND D ECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE CROSS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (ITA NO.6218/MUM/2013), THE ONLY GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT INTERES T U/S 244A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE EXCESS PAYMENT SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 50 CRORES. WE FIND THAT WE H AVE ALREADY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEA L OF THE BANK OF INDIA , 5 ASSESSEE (SUPRA), THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REV ENUE HAS REMAINED FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS CIT (W.P. NO.823 OF 2000 ORDER DATED 17/11/ 2014) (SUPRA). FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 26/03/2015. - ) +, . #/ 26 /0 3 /2015 ) 4 SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; . # DATED : 26/03/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. #.. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 6789 / THE APPELLANT 2. :;89 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. <' ( 67 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. <' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. >? :'#$ , 67* 6$ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. % @ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ;>7' :' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI