KAKU TULSIDAS BHATIA,MUMBAI V. .ACIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

MA 209/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a series of legal proceedings concerning the delayed tax refund to the assessee, Kaku Tulsidas Bhatia, for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Initially, the Revenue appealed against an order by the CIT(A) which resulted in a tax refund to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) delayed the issuance of the refund, prompting the assessee to file a petition for contempt against the Department. Although the AO eventually issued the refund, the assessee continued to seek compensatory interest for the delay. The Tribunal, in its latest order, dismissed the assessee's application for contempt, stating that the Department had complied with all orders and there was no basis for contempt proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32190 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H. PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: N.M. PORWAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 209/Mum/2024 (Arising out of M.A No. 367/Mum/2022) (In ITA No. 1783/Mum/2014) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Kaku Tulsidas Bhatia, 39/40, Purab Apartment, 42, Ridge Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai PAN : AABPB0770H vs. ACIT, CC-16(2), Mumbai (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri N.M. Porwal For Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande Date of Hearing : 06-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09-12-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee filed this Miscellaneous Application, against the order dated 17-05-2024 passed by the Tribunal in M.A No. 367/Mum/2022 relating to Assessment Year (AY.)-2007-08. According to Ld A.R, this is not miscellaneous application, but a petition to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the Income tax department. 2. The history of this case is discussed in brief. The Revenue had preferred an appeal against the order dated 24-02-2013 passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and it was numbered as ITA No.1783/Mum/2014. The 2 M.A. No. 209/Mum/2024 Tribunal, vide its order dated 29-08-2018, disposed of the said appeal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It is pertinent to note that, consequent to passing of order by Ld.CIT(A), refund of tax became payable to the assessee. Since the AO was not passing the consequential order, which is necessary for granting refund, the assessee moved a petition before the Tribunal with request to initiate contempt proceedings and it was numbered as M.A. No. 367/Mum/2022. The plea of the assessee was to initiate contempt of court proceeding against the Department for their delay in implementing the order passed by the Tribunal. 2.1. When the said petition was pending before the Tribunal, the assessing officer issued refund of tax of Rs. 32,90,000/-, vide his order dt. 15-01-2014. On noticing that the assessee had obtained the refund, the Tribunal dismissed the petition of the assessee, vide its order dated 17-05-2014. While hearing that petition, the Ld.AR also pleaded for a direction from the Tribunal to the assessing officer for granting compensatory interest to the assessee against the delayed refund of tax. However, the Tribunal declined to give such kind of direction, as it is beyond the scope of sec.254(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee has again filed the present Miscellaneous Application with the very same prayer, i.e., requesting the Tribunal to initiate contempt proceedings against the Income Tax Department for the delayed refund of tax. 4. It can be noticed that since the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed, the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) became final and it has resulted in granting of refund to the assessee. We notice that the AO has reported that the assessee had also filed appeal against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.3358/Mum/2014 and the Tribunal had restored the matters contested by the assessee to the file of the AO. 3 M.A. No. 209/Mum/2024 Since the AO did not re-examine the issue within the prescribed time limit, the additions were deleted. Hence, the cause of action for granting refund to the assessee arose on account of the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and AO. 5. The above facts would show that the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of appeal filed by revenue does not require passing of any consequential order. In respect of appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal has simply restored the matter to the file of AO and in the eyes of law, it has been complied with. Hence in respect of both the orders, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the revenue to comply with the orders of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no necessity for the ITAT to initiate contempt proceeding against the Income Tax Department as requested by the assessee. The assessee may approach appropriate authorities for redressing its grievance of delay in granting refund to the assessee. Accordingly, we dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application/petition filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, the petition of the assessee/Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09-12-2024 Sd/- Sd/- [ANIKESH BANERJEE] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 09-12-2024 TNMM 4 M.A. No. 209/Mum/2024 Copy to : 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “E” Bench, Mumbai. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Dy./Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai "