Case, The Tribunal Is Justified In Holding That Theassessee Shall Be Entitled To Interest Under Section244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Ofexcess Self v. N.c.tewari, Commissioner Of Income Tax &Others[1] And The Order Dated 22[Nd] December, 2014 Of Thecoordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In Respect Of The Samerespond

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.742 OF 2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2 V/s. Bank of India --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Subhash Shetty for the Respondent. --- … Appellant … Respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018. P.C.:- 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 26[th] March, 2015passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). ThisAppeal relates to Assessment Year 2003-04. 2.The Revenue urges the following question of law for ourconsideration: “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that theassessee shall be entitled to interest under Section244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect ofexcess self assessment tax paid?” 3.We find that the impugned order dated 26[th] March, 2015of the Tribunal has held that the respondent-assessee is entitled tointerest under Section 244A of the Act on the excess self assenttax paid by him, from the date of payment till refund. This byfollowing the decision of this Court in Stock Holding Corporationof India Ltd. V/s N.C.Tewari, Commissioner of Income Tax &Others[1] and the order dated 22[nd] December, 2014 of theCoordinate bench of the Tribunal in respect of the samerespondent–assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. 4.We are informed that the Revenue being aggrieved by theorder of the Tribunal for assessment year 2003-04 filed anappeal to this court being Income Tax Appeal No.1249 of 2015.This was dismissed on 4[th] April, 2018 by the Division Bench ofthis Court following the decision of this Court in Stock HoldingCorporation of India Ltd.(supra). Priya Soparkar 5.In the above circumstances, the proposed question does notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, notentertained. 6.Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….