Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad Iv v. Shah Alloys Limited....opponent(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 788 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH andHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD IV....Appellant(s) Versus SHAH ALLOYS LIMITED....Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 16/09/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.The present Tax Appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’ for short) dated 14/12/2012 in ITA No. 2024/Ahd/2012 with respect to Assessment Year 2005-06 by which the tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the revenue confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 28/06/2012. 2.It appears that on finalization of the assessment proceedings by the tribunal, the assessee was entitled to the credit of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. It appears that the Assessing Officer did not give the credit of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and, therefore, the assessee submitted an application dated 07/11/2011 under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming credit/refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- as well as interest thereon under Section 244A of the Act. Vide order dated 03/02/2012, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle – 8 has allowed the said application and directed to give credit of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. However, as such, no order was passed granting interest on the aforesaid amount under Section 244A of the Act. Shri Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as such at the relevant time the Department did not give the refund of Rs.1,30,00,000/- because of wrong assessment year mentioned by the assessee. It is submitted that therefore as it was the mistake on the part of the assessee, the assessee would not be entitled to the interest under Section 244A of the Act. 3.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle – 8 in not granting and/or not passing any order with respect to interest on the aforesaid amount under Section 244A of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and by order dated 28/06/2012 CIT(A) has allowed the appeal and has directed the Assessing Officer to grant interest under Section 244A of the Act on the refund till date of issue of the review order to the assessee in accordance with law and provision of the Act after taking into account the date of advance tax and other details. When the order passed by the CIT(A) was further carried in appeal before the ITAT, the tribunal by impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal against which revenue is before this Court with the aforesaid proposed question of law. 4.Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue has vehemently submitted that by passing the impugned orders and directing the Assessing Officer neither the CIT(A) nor the tribunal had considered, whether the assessee and/or the Department was at fault. It is submitted that as such there was no delay attributed to the Department and, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to the interest under Section 244A of the Act. It is submitted that according to the Department, it was the mistake on the part of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to the interest under Section 244A of the Act. 5.Having heard Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and considering the order passed by the CIT(A), which has been confirmed by the tribunal, it appears that CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to grant the interest under Section 244A of the Act on the refund issue till the date of issue of the refund order to the assessee in accordance with law and the provisions of the Act. Meaning thereby, the CIT(A) has kept open all the issues/questions, which are required to be considered whether to grant interest under Section 244A of the Act or not. 6.In that view of the matter and when the CIT(A) itself has observed that the interest under Section 244A of the Act should be considered in accordance with law and the said order has been confirmed by the tribunal, apprehension on the part of the appellant is not well founded. While considering the question of interest under Section 244A of the Act, all the contentions, which are stipulated under Section 244A of the act are required to be satisfied. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the CIT(A) confirmed by the ITAT. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R.SHAH, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Siji