Itxa/564/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Iii v. Excel Industries Ltd

sbw *1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.564 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.575 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-III..Appellant -Versus-M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Ms. Vasanti B. Patel for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 18[th] SEPTEMBER, 2014 P.C.: 1]When this Appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 13[th] July, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4095/Mum/2009 and 4134/Mum/2009 and Cross Objections was placed before us for admission, Mr. Suresh Kumar stated that there are three substantial questions of law which can be said to be arising from the order of the Tribunal. 2]These three substantial questions of law are common to both Appeals. Having carefully perused them with the assistance of Mr. Suresh Kumar, we find that each of them is concluded by judgments and orders of this Court in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In so far as the first question appearing in the memo of the two Appeals pertaining to advance license benefits, DEPB benefits, DFRC benefits and reversal of advance license issued it is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Excel Industries Ltd. reported in (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). 3]So as the second question styled as (B) and in relation to disallowance of expenses under section 14A once again the issue has been answered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court and to which a Reference is made by the Revenue itself, namely, in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. reported in 328 ITR 81. 4]The Third question reads as under:- “Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in law in holding that interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable upto the date of issue of refund and not up to the date on which it was granted?” 5]We have carefully perused the question and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the same. The Tribunal granted the interest on the delayed payment of refund. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that the Tribunal ought to have referred to the scheme of the Act and granted a reasonable time so as not to impose the liability to pay interest from the date of the payment of tax/penalty but from the date of the order passed sanctioning and granting the refund. We are unable to agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar because on a plain reading of section 244A(1)(b) it is apparent that the interest has to be calculated at the rate specified therein from the date of payment of the tax/penalty to the date on which the refund is granted. Even the explanation below clause (b) clarifies this aspect. In these circumstances and relying upon an order in Income Tax Appeal No.173 of 2012 decided on 3[rd] July, 2014, we are of the view that even the third question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. 6]As a result of the above discussion, the Appeals fail and they are dismissed accordingly. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 3/3