Itxa/330/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-7 v. Novartis India Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.330 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.330 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Novartis India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co. for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. The appeal seeks to raise the following substantial question of law:- 1) Whether the principles of compensation to the assessee in issue of refund due, laid down in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. by the Supreme Court amounts to compound interest as demanded by the assessee and the assessee needs to be compensated in the form of interest upto the date of grant of refund when there is no wrongful withholding of refund ? 2) Whether the ratio decided by the Supreme Court of India in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported in 280 I.T.R. 643 (SC) implies that additional interest in form of interest on interest has to be granted even where the amount due to the assessee have been refunded with full interest dues ? 3) Whether or not the Income Tax Department obligation to compensate the assessee come to an end when the interest dues is paid fully upto date of order and such refund is granted to the - = : 2 : = - assessee ? 4) Whether the refund due to the assessee becomes due before an order giving effect is passed ? 2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that issue sought to be raised is squarely covered by Sandvik the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax Asia Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported280 ITR 643. The Tribunal has relied upon the very in 280 ITR 643 same judgment in support of the order. Though learned counsel for the revenue tried to distinguish the judgment, he could not take the same to its logical end. We, therefore, find no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. Appeal is thus dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)