In Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bank Of

Priya Soparkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1589 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 : FEBRUARY 05, 2019. P.C.:- 1.Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question was presentedfor our consideration:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was correct in law, in holdingthat interest u/s 244A is to be allowed on the selfassessment tax refunded to the assessee withoutappreciating the fact that self assessment tax hasbeen voluntarily paid by the assessee and notpursuant to a notice of demand issued u/s 156 ofthe Income Tax Act and as such the assessee is noteligible for interest u/s 244(1)(b) of the IncomeTax Act?” 2.The issue came up for our consideration before this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of India[1]. The High Court observed as under:- “2. The Revenue insists that both the followingquestions of law, arise for our consideration: “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstanceof the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified inlaw in holding that interest u/s.244A is to beallowed on the self assessment tax refunded to theassessee without appreciating the fact that selfassessment tax has been voluntarily paid by theassessee and not pursuant to a notice of demandissued u/s. 156 of the I.T.Act and as such theassessee is not eligible for interest u/s. 244(1)(b) ofthe I.T. Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was correct in law, inholding that interest u/s.244A is to be allowed onthe self assessment tax refunded to the assesseeignoring the decision of the Delhi High Court in thecase of Engineers India Ltd.,(55 Taxman.com1)?” 3. Re. Question (a):- (i) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunalhas held that the Respondent-Assessee is entitled tointerest under Section 244-A of the Act on therefund of the excess self assessment tax paid by it.This by following the decision of this Court in StockHolding Corporation of India Ltd. v/s. N. C. Tewari,Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR282/29 Taxman 512/53 taxmann.com 106. (ii) In view of the above, question (a) does not giverise to any substantial question of law, thus notentertained. Priya Soparkar 4. Re. Question (b):- (i) The grievance of the Revenue is that theimpugned order of the Tribunal erred in ignoringthe decision on Delhi High Court in CIT v/s.Engineers India Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 377/232Taxman 287/55 taxmann.com 1 while allowing theappeal of the Respondent-Assessee. (ii) This grievance of the Revenue is unsustainablein law. This is so, as the Tribunal is bound by thedecision of the jurisdictional High Court as held bythe Apex Court in East India Commercial v/s.Collector of Customs AIR 1962 (SC) 1893 and thisCourt in CIT v/s. Thane Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.,(1994) 206 ITR 727. (iii) Thus, no fault can be found with the impugnedorder of the Tribunal in allowing the Respondent-Assessee's appeal by following the decision of thisCourt in Stock Holding Corporation (supra). (iv) It may also be pointed out in passing, that thedecision of the Delhi High Court in EngineeringIndia Ltd., (supra), has been set aside by the ApexCourt in Engineers India Ltd. v/s. CIT (2017)397ITR 16/250 Taxman 19/84 taxmann.com 178 andrestored to the High Court for fresh consideration.(v) In view of the above, the question no.(b) asframed does not give rise to any substantialquestion of law. Thus, not entertained.” 3. In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….