M.N. RANGAMANI,CHENNAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD - 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

MA 161/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M.N. Rangamani, the appellant, who sought a recall/rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing his appeal for compensation due to delayed payment of interest on a tax refund. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal, stating that Section 244A of the Income Tax Act only entitles the assessee to receive simple interest on the refund due, without any provision for compensation for delay. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not consider several Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting his claim. However, the Tribunal found that these judgments were not relevant to the issue at hand, as clarified by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, which specifically stated that only statutory interest under Section 244A can be claimed, and no other interest or compensation for delay is permissible.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790547 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. H. E. G. Ltd., Sandvik Asia Ltd. V. CIT, Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, Motor and General Finance Ltd. v. CIT, Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Upasana Finance Ltd., Umang Agrawal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Section 244A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. RAGHUPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: M.N. RANGAMANI; C.A
• Section: 244A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद! एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! क े सम( BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A No.161/Chny/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.2383/Chny/2024) िनधा )रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M.N. Rangamani, 94, First Avenue, Defence Officers Colony, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Chennai. [PAN: AAEPR 5701M] (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथ, की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A ./थ, की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : By way of this Miscellaneous Application (MA), the assessee is seeking to recall/rectification of the order passed in ITA No.2383/Chny/2024 dated 07.04.2025, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.161/Chny/2025 MN Rangamani :- 2 -: 2. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal did not consider or discuss following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts cited by the assessee, while dismissing the claim for compensation on account of delayed payment of interest on refund: a. Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. H. E. G. Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 331 (SC) [2010] -Para 3.1 of Written Statement (WS) and Annexure - 9 in pages 51-53. b. Sandvik Asia Ltd. V. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC) Para 4.2 of WS and Annexure-10 in pages 55-80. c. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013] 358 ITR 291 (SC) Para 4.3 of WS and Annexure-11 in pages 81-83. d. Motor and General Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 320 ITR 88 (Delhi) - Para 4.4 of WS and Annexure-12 in pages 84-94. e. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. Upasana Finance Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 172 (Mad) - Para 4.5 of WS and Annexure-13 in pages 95-98. f. Umang Agrawal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Allahabad High Court ) - Para 4.6 of WS and Annexure-14 in pages 99- 104. The Ld AR therefore argued that because of the above reason, there is mistake apparent from the record in the order and the same may be recalled/ rectified. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Tribunal and opposed the recall. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.161/Chny/2025 MN Rangamani :- 3 -: 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the Tribunal, in its earlier order, held as under: “7. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has claimed compensation for inordinate delay in payment of interest on refund. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that Section 244A of the Act entitles assessee to receive simple interest on the refund due, but does not provide for compensation for any delay in payment of such interest. The Ld. AR has relied on various case laws. However, we find that none of these case laws are relevant to present case. In the case of CIT vs. H.E.G. Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only answered the meaning of the words “refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee” in Section 244A of the Act. The case of Sandvik vs. CIT is relating to A.Y.1977-78 to 19-82-83 prior to insertion of section 244A of the Act for granting interest on refunds, when there was no provision for granting interest for delayed payment of refund. In the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013] 358 ITR 291 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8 has observed as under: “8. Further it is brought to our notice of 1988 (w.e.f. 01.04.1989) has inserted Section 244A to the Act which provides for interest on refunds under various contingencies. We clarify that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.” 8. Therefore, it has been clarified by Hon’ble Supreme Court that only interest provided under the Act can be claimed by an assessee, and no compensation for any delay in payment of interest is permissible. We accordingly, find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 5. We find that the Tribunal has categorically taken note of all the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR and that none of them were relevant to the issue involved. The Tribunal has adjudicated the matter based on the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.161/Chny/2025 MN Rangamani :- 4 -: Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra). Therefore, we do not find any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification. 6. In this regard, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., TCA No. 156 of 2006 dated 21.08.2007, has held as under: “The Tribunal has no power to review its order. When the Tribunal has already decided an issue by applying its mind against the assessee, the same cannot be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act. There was no necessity whatsoever for the Tribunal to review its own order. Even after examining the judgment of the Tribunal, we could not find a single reason in the whole order as to how the Tribunal is justified and for what reasons. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own order. It is completely impermissible and the Tribunal has traversed out of its jurisdiction in allowing a Miscellaneous Petition in the name of reviewing its own order.” In view of the above, we find no apparent mistake in the Tribunal’s order. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the M.A filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 04th day of December, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा सद! /Accountant Member चे\u0010नई/Chennai, \u0013दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. EDN/- Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.161/Chny/2025 MN Rangamani :- 5 -: आदेश क\u0016 \bितिल\u0019प अ\u001aे\u0019षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "