Itxa/754/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Vi, Mumbai v. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.754 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.754 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai City - VI, MumbaiV/s.Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai . ...Appellant...Respondent Mr.R. Asokan, Advocate, for the Appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistry, Advocate, i/b. Dave & Girish, for theRespondent. P.C. : CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2008. .Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellantand the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2.By the above Appeal, the following substantialquestion of law sought to be raised :- (a).Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Tribunal is correct in allowing theinterest on interest u/s. 244(1A) of the Acton an amount of Rs.20,43,129/- payable to theassessee? 3.We have also perused the Tribunal’s orderdated 24th October, 2001 wherein paragraph 8 reads asunder :- "8.The second issue relates to theinterest u/s. 244(1A). The A.O. by orderdated 11/11/1991 gave effect to the appellateorder and determined a refund ofRs.20,43,129/-. No interest was howevergranted u/s. 244(1A). The CIT(A), followingthe order of the Tribunal in the assessee’sown case for the A.Y. 1979-80 (supra),rejected the assessee’s claim. In the appealfor the A.Y. 1980-1981, we have already held,following the judgment of the Supreme Court inthe case of Modi Industries (supra) and theamended order of the Tribunal for the A.Y.79-80 that the assessee’s claim cannot beresisted. It is not in dispute that therefund arose out of advance tax. In tune withour decision for that year, we uphold theassessee’s claim." 4.We have also perused the Grounds of Appeal inthe Appeal filed by the Respondent-assessee. Even the grounds as well as the aforesaid paragraph 8 clearlyindicate that the Tribunal was only concerned with thegrant of interest under Section 244(1A) of the IncomeTax Act. In fact no issue was raised with regard tothe interest on interest and the Tribunal has notgranted the interest on interest. The aforesaidquestion of law is misconceived. The Appeal is devoidof merits. Hence the same stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]