K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST B.O.I NO 2, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6793/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92459 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1984-1985
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: READY REFERENCE; CONSIDERATION SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: FACTS ARE IDENTICAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 263; 154

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.6792 TO 6826/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1984-85 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, B.O.I.NO.1 TO 35 C/O-SEVANTILAL N. SHAH & CO. 28, DALAMAL CHAMBERS 2 ND FLOOR,17,NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 12(2)(1), MUMBAI ( !' /ASSESSEE) ( # / REVENUE) SL. NO. APPEAL NO S . NAME OF ASSESSEES PAN NOS. 1 6792/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 1 P.A.NO.AAABK0885F 2. 6793/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 2 P.A.NO.AAABK0884E 3. 6794/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 3 P.A.NO.AAABK0882C 4. 6795/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 4 P.A.NO.AAABK0881B 5. 6796/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 5 B.O.I NO. 5 - P.A. NO.AAABK0868N 6. 6797/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 6 P.A.NO.AAABK0867D 7. 6798/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 7 P.A.NO.AAABK0880A 8. 6799/MUM/2013 K. KAC HRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 8 P.A.NO.AAABK0879M 9. 6800/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO. 9 P.A. NO.AAABK0878L 10. 6801/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.10 P.A.NO.AAABK0877F 11. 6802/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.11 P.A.NO.AAABK0866C K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 2 12. 6803/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.12 P.A.NO.AAABK0865B 13. 6804/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.13 P.A.NO.AAABK0864A 14. 6805/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.14 P.A.NO.AAABK0863H 15. 6806/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.15 P.A.NO.AAABK0862G 16. 6807/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.16 P.A.NO.AAABK0861F 17. 6808/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.17 P.A.NO.AAABK0878E 18. 6809/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.18 P.A.NO.AAABK0875H 19. 6810/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.19 P.A.NO.AAAB K0860E 20. 6811/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.20 P.A.NO.AAABK0859R 21. 6812/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.21 P.A.NO.AAABK0858Q 22. 6813/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.22 P.A . NO.AAABK0857B 23. 6814/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.23 P.A. NO.AAABK0856A 24. 6815/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.24 P.A. NO.AAABK0874G 25. 6816/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.25 P.A. NO.AAABK0873B 26. 6817/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.26 P.A. NO.AAABK0855D 27. 6818/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.27 P.A. NO.AAABK0854C 28. 6819/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.28 P.A. NO.AAABK0872A 29. 6820/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.29 P.A. NO.AAABK0853F 30. 6821/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.30 P.A. NO.AAABK0852E 31. 6822/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.31 P.A.NO.AAABK0871D 32. 6823/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.32 P.A. NO.AAABK0851H 33. 6824/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.33 P.A. NO.AAABK0883D 34. 6825/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC . FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.34 P.A. NO.AAABK0870C 35. 6826/MUM/2013 K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST. B.O.I NO.35 P.A. NO.AAABK0869P K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 3 $ #% & '' / DATE OF HEARING 22/04/2015 & '' / DATE OF ORDER: 01/05/2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 23/09/2013 OF TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI, AGAINST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI RAJENDRA D. SHAH, CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE AND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND CLAIMED T O BE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25/03 /2015 (ITA NO.6298/MUM/2013 ALONG WITH OTHER CASES). THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS CONSENTED TO BE CORRECT BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN, LD. DR. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/03/2015 FOR READY REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION:- !' ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJENDRA D.SHAH # ! / REVENUE BY SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN-DR K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 4 ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSE SSEES AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER 29/ 08/2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-23 MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YE AR 1984-85. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICA L AND READ AS UNDER: 1) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN THE POINTS OF LAW AND F ACTS. 2) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON REFUND OF RS.40,442/-. 3) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST ON REFUND OF RS.L 1,138/-. 4) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST. 2. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT WHILE ARGUING THE APPEAL THE FACTS WERE ARGUED FROM ITA NO.6298/MUM/2013 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN RESPECT OF EA CH OF THE APPEAL AND DECISION TAKEN ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE TO OTHER APPEALS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEES ARE BENEFICIARY OF K. KACHARADAS PAT EL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST HAVING 0.5% PRESENT SHARE IN PARENT TRUST. THE ASSESSEE TRUST ALSO DERIVED 0.5% DEFE RRED SHARE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85 RETURN WAS FILED WITH ITO,A-1, MUMBAI ON 23/6/1984 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,10 ,290/- OF WHICH TAXES WERE PAID AT A SUM OF RS.51,580/-. THE RETURNED K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 5 INCOME WAS ACCEPTED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/2/1987 PASS ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED TO TAX ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF MAIN TRUST NAMELY K. KACHARA PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST. TH E MAIN TRUST WAS AGITATING THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEALS. HOWEV ER, THE MAIN TRUST NAMELY K. KACHARA PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUS T SETTLED THE DISPUTE UNDER KVSS. IN VIEW OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, T HE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THIS PRESENT TRUSTS WERE DELETED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 16(5) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28/11/200 0 PASSED UNDER SECTION 155 OF THE ACT AND INCOME OF THESE ASSESSEE S WERE COMPUTED AT NIL. THE AO ALLOWED THE REFUND AS UND ER: TOTAL TAXES PAID RS. 51,580/- LESS: REFUNDED VIDE ORDER DT. 29/2/88 RS. 40,442/- BAL. REFUND DUE RS. 11,138/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED REFUND OF RS.11,138/- AS PER THE ABOVE CALCULATION THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DA TED 7/12/2000 SEEKING FOLLOWING REFUND: 1) REFUND OF RS.40,442/-, ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED I N THE CASE OF MAIN TRUST ALONGWITH DUE INTEREST. 2) INTEREST ON REFUND AS ALSO INTEREST ON INTEREST . 3.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DA TED 5/10/2012 FOR INTEREST ON REFUND UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE AC T TILL THE DATE OF REFUND, WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY AO AND ALSO BY LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 6 3.2 FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THE FACTS IT MA Y BE MENTIONED HERE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE TAX O F RS.31,780/- AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.19,800/-. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS A SUM OF RS.51,580/-. AS P ER INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM DATED 28/11/2000, COPY OF WHICH HA S BEEN FILED AT PAGES 10 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS IN PURS UANCE TO ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 155(2) OF THE ACT AND AS PER S AID COMPUTATION A REFUND OF RS.40,442/- WAS GRANTED VID E ORDER DATED 29/02/1988 AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.11,138/- WAS RE FUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING INTEREST ON THE AFOREMENTIONED REFUND OF 40,442/- UPTO THE DATE 29/ 2/1988 AND FOR A SUM OF RS.11,138/- UPTO 28/11/2000. 3.3 IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUB STANTIAL ASSESSABILITY OF THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE MAI N TRUST NO INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THESE ASSESSEE S. THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHATEVER TAX IS REFUN DED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET INTEREST ON THE SAID REFUND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 244(1A) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S IN THE CASES OF OTHER BENEFICIARIES THERE IS DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH, WHICH IS DATED 7/7/2006, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGES 33 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH THAT THE BENEFICIARIES ARE ENTITLED TO GET THE INTEREST. T HE SPECIAL BENCH WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF KVSS 1998 AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HOSE PROVISIONS IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST WAS RIGHTLY GR ANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASES BEFORE SPPECIAL BENCH INITI ALLY SUCH INTEREST WAS GRANTED BY THE AO WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CIT U/S.263 AND IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST WAS RIGHTLY G RANTED BY THE K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 7 AO. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. 27. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE DIFFERENT B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SUBJECT AND THE PLETHORA OF MATERI ALS PLACED BEFORE US ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT, APPEAL AND REVISIO N ORDERS. 28. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE DISPUTE REGARDING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEA LS WERE CONTINUED TO EXIST AT THAT POINT, OF TIME. WE FIND THAT THIS QUESTION IS QUITE ACADEMIC. THE MAIN TRUSTS HAVE SOUGHT SET TLEMENT OF THEIR SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS UNDER KVSS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT. THAT ITS ELF SHOWED THAT THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED AND EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ISSUE WAS PENDING BE FORE THE HIGH COURT IN REFERENCE JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, TO MAKE THE MATTER CLEAR , WE STATE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT SUCH A CONTROVERSY DID NOT EXIST. 29. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ANSWER TO THE CONTROVE RSY CROPPED UP IN THESE CASES IS AVAILABLE IN THE RELEVANT INSTR UCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDJ IN THE CONTEXT OF KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEM E, 1998. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE RELEVANT QUESTION AND ANSW ER TO THE QUESTION. THE CBDT HAS STATED IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS THAT DECLARATIONS ARE TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUBSTANTI VE ASSESSMENTS. THE BOARD HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PROTECTIVE DEMAND IS NOT SUBJECT TO RECOVERY UNLESS IT IS FINALLY UPHELD. THE BOARD HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ONCE THE DECLARATION IN A SUBSTANTIV E CASE OR YEAR IS ACCEPTED, THE TAX ARREAR IN PROTECTIVE CASE / YE AR WOULD NO LONGER BE VALID AND WILL BE RECTIFIED BY SUITABLE O RDERS IN THE NORMAL COURSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE SUBSTANTIVE ASSE SSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE HANDS OF MAIN TRUSTS. PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF BENEFICIAL TRUSTS. MAIN TRUSTS HAVE SETTLED THE DISPUTE UNDER KVSS. THEY HAVE PAID THE TAX UNDER KVSS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THEIR HANDS ON SUBSTANTIV E BASIS. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR, THE CORRES PONDING PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN THE HANDS OF BENEFIC IAL TRUSTS WOULD FADE AWAY AND THE DEMAND RAISED IN THOSE PRO TECTIVE ASSESSMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE VALID. WHEN THE ASSE SSMENT IS NOT K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 8 SUBSISTING AND THE DEMAND IS NOT VALID, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN SUBJECT TO PROTECTIV E ASSESSMENT BECOMES REFUNDABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY ACCEPTED THE PRAYERS OF THE ASSESSEES AND PASSED APPROPRIAT E ORDERS EXCLUDING THE INCOMES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONS IDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE MAIN TRUSTS UNDER KVSS. THEREFORE, OB VIOUSLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE CON SEQUENTIAL PROCEDURE AND MAKING REFUND TO THE ASSESSEES. 30. ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION IS THAT THE INCOME SHALL NOT BE TAXED TWICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INCOM E UNDER DISPUTE IS THE SAME CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE MAIN TR USTS AND ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIAL TRUSTS. K AR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 WAS INTRODUCED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO SETTLE THE PENDING LITIGATIONS AT DIFFERENT LEVE LS AND COLLECT THE TAX ONCE FOR ALL AND REACH FINALITIES IN THE MATTER S CONNECTED THERETO. EVEN THOUGH KVSS WAS A SPECIAL SCHEME, TH E KVSS DID NOT PROPOSE TO TAX ANY INCOME TWICE. WHETHER UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR UNDER THE SCHEM E OF KVSS WHAT IS TO BE ASSESSED AND SUBJECTED TO TAX IS THE REAL INCOME ONCE FOR ALL. KVSS DOES NOT CREATE ANY ARTIFICIALITY. A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE ENDORSED UNDE R THE KVSS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME, 1998 DOES NOT EMPOWER THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT TO TAX THE SAME I NCOME MORE THAN ONCE. THIS MUST BE MADE VERY CLEAR. 31. WHAT ARE THE SIMPLE FACTS AVAILABLE IN THESE C ASES? THE INCOMES OF THE MAIN MAIN TRUST HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE BENEFICIAR Y TRUSTS. THE BENEFICIARY TRUSTS HAVE FILED RETURNS IN THEIR INDI VIDUAL HANDS. THIS POSITION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. TH EREFORE, SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HAND S OF MAIN TRUSTS. IN ABUNDANT PRECAUTION PROTECTIVE ASSESSME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE BENEFICIARY T RUSTS. SUPPOSE THE PROPOSITION MADE OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS ACCE PTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN TH E HANDS OF THE MAIN TRUSTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHA T WOULD BE THE POSITION OF THE CORRESPONDING PROTECTIVE ASSE SSMENTS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARY TRUSTS? THE PROTECTIV E ASSESSMENTS WOULD HAVE BECOME INVALID AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE REVENUE WOULD REFUND THE AMOUNT OF TAX IF ANY PAID BY THE B ENEFICIARY TRUSTS WHILE FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 9 CAPACITIES. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ON THIS PRO POSITION. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE ABOVE POSITION WOULD BE DISTURBED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE INTERVENTION OF KVSS. THE MAIN TRUS TS HAVE SETTLED THEIR SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS UNDER KVSS WHICH FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IS EQUIVALENT TO FINALLY SETTLING THE SUBS TANTIVE ASSESSMENTS IN THEIR HANDS. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF TH E WHOLE PROCESS IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSES SMENTS HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEES AS SUCH OR HAVING BE EN SETTLED UNDER AN AVAILABLE SCHEME KNOWN AS KAR VIVAD SAMAD HAN SCHEME, 1995. IN EITHER CASE THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSM ENTS BECOME INVALID WHEREBY NO DEMAND CAN BE ENFORCED AGAINST T HOSE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS. THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEES HAVE PAID ANY AMOUNT OF TAX ALONG WITH THEIR RETURN S CONSIDERED FOR PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS, SUCH TAXES HAVE TO BE R EFUNDED TO THEM. 32. WE DO NOT FIND MUCH FORCE ON THE RELIANCE PLACE D BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL ON THE DECISION OF THE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL I NDUSTRIES VS. ITO 194 PER 659. IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO ASSESSME NT AT ALL AND THE QUESTION OF REFUND WAS CONSIDERED IN THAT PERSP ECTIVE WHICH IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE. THE INCOME I NVOLVED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS ARE ONE AND THE SAME. THE INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE MAIN TRUSTS AND THE DEMAND SUB SEQUENTLY SETTLED UNDER KVSS. IT IS QUITE UNNECESSARY TO REPE AT THAT THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF TH E MAIN TRUSTS. THEREFORE, NOTHING REMAINS THEREAFTER TO BE ASSESSE D IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARY TRUSTS, AS FAR AS THE INCOME OF MAIN TRUST IS CONCERNED. MOREOVER, A CASE OF ASSESSMENT CAN BE CO NTEMPLATED IN THE PRE5ENT CASES BECAUSE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THE, INCOME OF THE MAIN TRUSTS HAS TO BE ASSES SED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARY TRUSTS. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THAT PROPOSITION THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE BENE FICIARY TRUSTS. WHILE RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE BENEFICIARY TRUSTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES THEY ARE IN FACT OFFERING I NCOME FOR TAXATION. SECTION 140A PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN ASSES SEE FILES A RETURN OF INCOME AND WHERE TAX IS DUE AS PER THE SA ID RETURN, THE TAX SHALL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME AND THE PROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT OF TAX PROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT OF TAX SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOM E. THIS IS CALLED SELF-ASSESSMENT. WHEN AN ASSESSEE FILES A RE TURN WITH POSITIVE INCOME AND REMITS TAX THEREON U/S 140A, IN FACT, AN ASSESSMENT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED EVEN THOUGH IT IS A SELF- K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 10 ASSESSMENT. LATER ON, WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT THE IN COME COVERED BY THE SAID RETURN IS NOT TAXABLE THE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF THAT RETURN HAS TO BE RETURNED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, REFUND OF TAX IS A MUST IN THIS CASE. TH E PROPOSITION MADE BY THE CIT AGAINST THE REFUND OF TAX IS NOT PR OPER. 33. REGARDING THE GRANT OF INTEREST ALSO, THE POSIT ION IS VERY CLEAR. AS ALREADY OBSERVED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, THE REFUND OF TAX IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A MANDATE OF LAW. WHEN S UCH A REFUND IS CALLED FOR, INTEREST HAS TO BE PAID AS INTEREST IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. IT ALWAYS MOVES WITH THE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT. 34. THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE RE VENUE THAT THE DELAY N THE REFUND WAS CAUSED BECAUSE OF THE CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSEES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONING T HE PROPOSITION OF THE REVENUE TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF TH E MAIN TRUSTS. THAT IS WHY THE BENEFICIARY TRUSTS HAVE FILED THEI R INDIVIDUAL RETURNS OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM THE MAIN TRUSTS ALSO. BUT WHEN KVSS WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE GO VERNMENT OF INDIA, IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEES TO DECIDE WHETHER T O TAKE BENEFIT OUT OF THAT OR NOT. THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY WHEN KVSS WAS PROMULGATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OCCASION TO MAKE A MOVE AND SET TLE THE DISPUTE. SO ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS WERE LOCKED UP IN DIFFERENT APPELLATE FORUMS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN T HE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSEES. 35. THEREFORE, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEES ON REFUNDS DUE TO THEM. 3.4 IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ID ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION DATED 26/6/2 008 IN I.T APPEALS NOS. PUNITBEN K. PATEL OSFDT AND OTHERS 284 CASES TAX APPEAL NOS. 1514 TO 1797 OF 2006, MANJULABEN PRAM ODBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS, 64 CASES, TAX APPEAL NOS. 573 TO 618 AND 1216 TO 1233 OF 2007 AND JANAK PRAMODBHAI PATEL AND OTHE RS 6 CASES, TAX APPEAL NOS. 182 & 204 OF 2002 WITH TAX APPEAL N OS. 27 OF K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 11 30 OF 2004. COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FILED AT PAGES 6 4 TO 96 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3.5 SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO FINDINGS OF THEIR LORDS HIPS ON GRANT OF INTEREST OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: AS REGARDS GRANT OF INTEREST ON REFUND, WE FIND TH AT TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT REFUND SHOULD BE GRANTED WITH INTEREST. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL. WE REPEAT THAT REVENUE SHOULD NOT DRAG T HE RESPONDENTS TO UNNECESSARY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. 3.5 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ONE OF THE CAS ES INTEREST HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BY THE REVENUE AND SAID GRANT OF INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD WA S MADE TO THE CASE OF M/S.VRUTI DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST, IN RE SPECT OF WHICH AO DISALLOWED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR G RANT OF INTEREST AND LD. CIT(A) RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO ALLOW THE INTEREST AS PER LAW AND AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 11/2/2010 HAS ALLOWED SUCH INTEREST. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD WA S MADE TO THE PAPERS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS FOLLOWS: (1) RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PG S. 106 TO 108 (2) ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 19/9/2008 PAGE 109 TO 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (3) ORDER GIVING EFFECT BY THE AO DATED 11/2/2010 PAGES 111 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (4) NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 GRANTING INTERE ST OF RS.40,238/- PAGE 112 OF THE PAPER BOOK. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 12 (5) COMPUTATION OF SUCH INTEREST AT PAGES 113 TO 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3.6 THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE NECESSARY RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSES SEE. IN THIS MANNER GROUND NO.2 AND 3 WERE ARGUED BY LD. AR. 4. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO GROUND NO.4, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY AR THAT SINCE REVENUE HAS DEPRIVED THE ASSESSEE FOR LON G TIME FOR GRANTING THE INTEREST OR REFUND WITHOUT ANY JUST CAUSE, A SSESSEE SHOULD ALSO BE HELD ENTITLED FOR RECEIVING INTEREST ON INTERES T. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT AO HAS RIGHTFULLY DENIED INTEREST TO TH E ASSESSEE AND REFERRING TO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT REFUND IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF ANY AMOUNT HAVING NOT BEEN PAID IN P URSUANCE OF ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SINCE, IN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ONLY PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO, WITH THE UNDISPUTED POSITION OF THE AO BEING THAT INCOME ON WHICH THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BELONG TO IT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO THE DEMAND ON THE INCOME OF THE MAIN TRU ST. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE INCOME AS ITS OWN AND HA D PAID THE TAX ON ITS OWN VOLITION, AND IN ORDER TO PROTECT INTEREST OF REVENUE THE AO ONLY MADE THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. NO ENFORCEABL E DEMAND WAS CREATED ON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO WELL SETTL ED POSITION OF LAW, IN PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT DEMAND IS ONLY CONTINGENT DEMAND AND NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AND THUS, IN REALITY ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY TAX IN PURSUANCE OF ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. LD. DR FUR THER REFERRED TO K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 13 THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT, 216 ITR 759 REFERRED TO IN PARA-6.2.3 OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PLEADED THAT THE MEANING OF REGULAR ASSESSM ENT IN SECTION 214, WOULD BE THAT A TAX PAYER IS ENTITLED TO CLAI M INTEREST ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT ADVANCE TAX PAID ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO ASSESSED TAX DETERMINED ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER NO INT EREST CAN BE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 214 BEYOND THE DATE OF REGULA R ASSESSMENT. IN THIS MANNER LD. DR PLEADED THAT INTEREST HAS RIGHTL Y BEEN DENIED BY LD. CIT(A). 6. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO GROUND NO.4, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY LD. DR THAT ACCORDING TO DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT FLOURO CHEMICALS, 358 ITR 291 (SC) W.E.F. 1/4/1989 THE INTEREST WHICH CAN BE GRANTED TO THE A SSESSEE ON REFUND AS PER SECTION 244A WOULD BE THE INTEREST PROVIDED IN THAT SECTION AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST CAN BE PROVIDED. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. DR THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION AC CORDING TO WHICH ASSESSEE CAN BE GRANTED INTEREST ON INTEREST. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THE PRESENT CASES AS SESSEES ARE COMMON TO THE ASSESSEES WITH REGARD TO WHOM, EARLIE R SPECIAL BENCH HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND. SPECIAL BENCH ORDER WAS ON THE MERITS OF T HE ISSUE AS WELL AS ON THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS INVOKED BY THE CIT TO DENY THESE ASSESSES BENEFIT OF INTEREST WHICH WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY THE AO. SPECIAL BENCH HAS D ECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF SPECIAL BENCH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 14 7.1 THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDE R OF SPECIAL BENCH BEFORE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS NOT ONLY UPHELD THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH ON THE ISSUE REGARDING GRANT OF INTEREST BUT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT DRAG THE ASSESSEESS TO UNNECESSARY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. IN SPITE OF SUCH A WARNING GIVEN BY THE COURT TO THE REVENUE, THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN IN THE PRESENT CASES HAS DRAGGED THESE ASSESSEES IN LITIGATION FOR NON- GRANTING OF THE INTEREST. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR LORDS HIPS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED. IT IS MA DE CLEAR THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES AND THOSE WHICH WERE DEC IDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH AND HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ARE PA RI-MATERIA AND THIS FACT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE AO HAS ADOPTED A VIEW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF SPECIAL B ENCH AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND AS HE HAS AGAIN MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY REJECTING THE RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CONDUCT OF THE AO IS AGAIN ST THE DECISION RENDERED BY SPECIAL BENCH. SIMILARLY, LD. CIT(A) H AS DISREGARDED THE SPECIAL BENCH BY SIMPLY HOLDING THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A) THE SAID ORDER WAS IN RESPECT OF SECTION 244A. WE DONT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN SUCH DISREGARD SHOWN BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS & CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUCH CONDUCT OF THE REVENUE IS NEITHER ACCOR DING TO THE ACCEPTED POSITION OF LAW SETTLED BY THE HIGHER JUDI CIAL FORUMS NOR IT IS APPRECIABLE FOR THE REASON THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE REVENUE NOT TO DRAG THE ASSES SEE IN UNNECESSARY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 15 7.2 THE ISSUE REGARDING GRANT OF INTEREST TO THE A SSESSEES IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH AS WEL L AS HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTENDED TO BE REVERSED OR MODIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE REVENUE TO GRA NT THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED. 7.3 BEFORE PARTING WITH GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE A SSESSEES APPEAL, WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT IT IS A PROPER CASE WHERE COST CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE DEPARTMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT (SUPRA), BUT KEEPING IN VIEW THAT NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE BY LD . AR, WE RESTRAIN OURSELVES TO AWARD SUCH COST. 8. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.4, THIS ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY THE DECISION RE LIED UPON BY LD. DR. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT E NTITLED TO INTEREST ON INTEREST. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5/03/2015. 3.1. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE DISCUS SING THE FACTS OF ITA NO.6792/MUM/2013 (AY 1984-85) AND OUR CONCLUSION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE APPEALS BE ING ON IDENTICAL FACTS. THE ASSESSEES ARE BENEFICIARIES OF K KACHRADAS PATEL SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST, HAVING 0.5% AT PRESENT SHARE IN THE PARENT TRUST, AS PER SCHEDULE -1 ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF THE TRUST DEED OF T HE SAID K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 16 TRUST. THE ASSESSEE TRUST DERIVED 0.5% DEFERRED SHARE ALSO AS PER SCHEDULE-II ATTACHED AND FORMING PART OF THE TRUST DEED OF THE PARENT TRUST. THE ASSESSEE DECLA RED INCOME OF RS.1,10,335/- AND PAID TAXES THEREON AMOU NTING TO RS.51,580/- IN ITS RETURN ON 23/08/1984. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ORDE R DATED 18/03/1987 AT INCOME OF RS.1,15,280/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AS THE SAME WAS ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN TH E CASE OF MAIN TRUST I.E. K. KACHRADAS SPECIFIC FAMILY PAT EL. THE APPEAL OF THE MAIN TRUST WERE RESOLVED BY THE DEPAR TMENT UNDER K.V.S.S. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ON SUBSTANTI VE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, IN THE HANDS OF THE MAIN TRUS T, WAS PROTECTIVELY ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE V IDE ORDER U/S 155 OF THE ACT DATED 20/09/2000. THE TOTAL INCO ME WAS COMPUTED AT NIL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, ALLOWED REFUND OF RS.11,531/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 50/01/2001 SEEKING REFUND OF RS.40,049/- ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED IN THE CASE OF MAIN TRUST ALONGWITH INT EREST AND ALSO INTEREST ON REFUND ALONGWITH INTEREST ON INTER EST. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE, WE FIND TH AT THE TRIBUNAL, HAS ALREADY DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSU E IN ITS ORDER DATED 25/03/2015. WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL H AS PLACED RELIANCE UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS LIKE M/S VRU TI DISCRETIONARY FAMILY TRUST WITH RESPECT TO GRANT OF INTEREST, SPECIAL BENCH DECISION, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY HONB LE K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 17 GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PUNIT BEN K. PATEL OSFDT & OR S. (PARA 3.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL), MANJULA BE N, PRAMOD BHAI PATEL & ORS. ETC. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT NOT ONLY UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH ON GRANT OF INTEREST BUT ALSO DIRECTED THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT DRAG THE ASSESSEE TO UNNECESSA RY AVOIDABLE LITIGATION. THUS, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAI D DECISION, WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT INTERE ST TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 25/03/2015 ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. THUS, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL. FINALLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISPOSE D OFF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 01/05/2015. SD/- SD/- ( R.C.SHARMA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; ) DATED : 01/05/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,-. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ 1' ( +, ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P4. $ 1' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3#4 /' , +,' + 5 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7% / GUARD FILE. K. KACHRADAS PATEL SPEC. FAMILY TRUST BOI NO.1 TO 35 18 ! / BY ORDER, 03,' /' //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI