Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 V. M/s ICOMM Tele Ltd

ITTA/149/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Hyderabad against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had granted interest to ICOMIV Tele Ltd on a delayed refund. The primary legal issue was whether the appellate authority and the Tribunal were competent to decide on the period for which interest was payable on the delayed refund. The appellant argued that only the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner had the authority to decide this, as per Section 244-A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, both the appellate authority and the Tribunal found that the delay was not attributable to the respondent, thus not requiring exclusion of any period for interest calculation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726521 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA
• Assessee Lawyers: P KRISHNA
• Keywords: Appellate Authority; Assessment Year; Income Tax; Interest on Refund; Jurisdiction
• Section: 154; 260A; 244A(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBU NAL APPEALNO:149OF2022 AppealUnderSection260AofthetncomeTaxAct,l96lagainstorder of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'A' , Bench , Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 1281 tHydl2O17 ( Assessment Year 2009-10) dated 22-07-2021 preferred against the order dated 30-03-2017 in ITA No. OzO lDCft, Ctcle -2 (1) t 2016-17 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals )-9' Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -2 (1) , Hyderabad dated 25-03-20 15 in F'No' DCIT -2 (1)l AAECAI 326Q/14-1 5 Between: Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/ Appellant AND Ir//s ICOMIV Tele Ltd, 304, Trendset Towers, Road No.2, Ban.iara Hills, Hyderabad- 5OOO34. PAN- AAECA1 326Q ...RESPONDENT/ ResPondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P. MURALI KRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA The Court delivered the following Judgment: l THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJF,SHWAR RAO I.T.T.A. No.149 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) Heard on admisston. 2. Sri P. Murali Krishna, learned Senior Counsel for Income Tax Department, appears for the appellant and Sri A.V.A'Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appears for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeai contains lollowing substantial question of law: \"The ITAT erred in not appreciating that the order u/s 154 dated 25.03.202 l5 was pursuant to an application of the Assessee and ought to have held that any dispute as to the attribution of the delay could only have been trnally decided by the authorities empowered under Section 244A(2]'.\" It is submitted that the period for which interest is granted by Assessment order to the respondent is between 01.04.2009 to February, 2013. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal committed error in granting interest to the appellant on delayed payment of refund. Neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal was competent to decide the question regarding the period of interest. He placed heavy reliance on Sub-Section 2 of Section 244( l of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for 4 SP,' & itta 149 short \"the Act\") to submit that r,r,hether interest is to be granted or not, was required to be decided by the Principal Chlef Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whose decision thereon shali be final. Thus, both the appellate authority and learned Tribunal have gone wrong in determining the question of interest and for this singular reason, both orders must be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellalt is unable to apprise the Court whether this question of competence/jurisdiction was raised by the Revenue before the appellate authority and before the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 244 (A) of the Act is a complete code in itself. Both authorities have committed error of 1aw in granting interest to the respondent. The pure question of law can be dealt with by this Court for the first time, even if it was not raised before the appellate authority and the Tribunal. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that credit was given through Form 26-A(5) belatedly in February, 2013 itself. There is no delay on 2 the part of the respondent. SP,] & RRN,.' ifia 749 2022 B. We have heard the parties on this aspect. 9 Sub-section 2 of Section 244-A of the Act on the 3 I foundation of rvhich, entire argument is developed reads thus: \"If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the periocl of the delay so attributabie to him shall be excluded lrom the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided try the Chiel Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final.\" (Emphasis SuPPlied) 10. A microscopic reading of this provision makes it clear that it relates to such proceeding, where reason for delay on refund is attributable to the Assessee, only in such cases, sub- Section 2 of Section 244-A of the Act can be pressed into service. Whether there exists any delay for which assessee is responsible is a question of fact. The appellate authority and the Tribunal has given a finding of fact that respondent is not responsible for the delay. Further, a careful reading of sub-section 2 of Section 244-A of the Act makes it clear that when the proceedings were delayed or in other ltords, delay is attributable to the Assessee and a question arises, whether period reiating to such delay is to be excluded, the point can be decided by one of the aforesaid authorities, whose designations are mentioned in sub-Section (2) aforesaid. In the instant case, since concurrent finding of fact i I l' I SP,J itta 149 shows that the respondent was not responsible for the delay, the sub-Section 2 does not come to the rescue of the Revenue and question of excluding the period, '.vhich resulted in delay does not arise. Thus, in our opinion, sub-section 2 of Section 244-4 of the Act has no application in the fact situation of the present case. In our opinion, there efsts no substantial question, which needs to be decided in this matter. 1 1 . The admission is declined and the Appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'A' , Bench , Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome-Tax (Appeals )-9, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -2 (1) , Hyderabad- 4. One CC to SRl. P. MURALI KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies 4 kul/ghg I I { t HIGH COURT DATED:2710812024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.149 of 2022 DISMISSING'tIIE ITI'A WITHOUT COSI'S @q'4 kP 2tl24 .t' t r\"O o s PA C T o o 7 0 /C E S IA liOI/ 1H <)^ "