On Theother Hand, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Drewour Attention To The Decision Of This Court In Case Ofcommissioner Of Income Tax v. Larsen & Toubro Limited[1]In Which Under Similar Factual Situation The Court Had Madefollowing Observations

Priya Soparkar 123 itxa 894-16 with 38 itxa 920 of 2016-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.894 OF 2016WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.920 OF 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax -LIU… Appellant V/s. Union Bank of India … Respondent --- Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.Mr.Percy Pardiwalla, Senior counsel with Ms.Nupur Awasthi i/byM/s Consulta Juris for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2018. P.C.:- 1.Since facts are common, we may record them from Income Tax Appeal No.894 of 2016. 2.Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgment ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) dated 31[st]July, 2015. Priya Soparkar 3.Following question is presented for our consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was right indirecting to allow interest u/s. 244A of the Act onrs.48,09,517/- for period April 1991 to March1998, in contravention to section 244A(2),ignoring the fact that the delay in the proceedingsfor granting the refund was attributable toassessee and relief u/s. 244A(2) can only begranted by the commissioner and/or ChiefCommissioner of Income tax?” 4. The respondent-assessee is the Union Bank of India. For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had deducted tax atsource at the time of making various payments and also deposited such tax in the Government Revenue. TDS certificates were alsoproduced during the assessment. However, it appears thatcertificates which were issued by the Government agenciescontained such minor defects. The assessee had to have thedefects removed and re-submit the certificates. This tooksubstantial time. 5.In this context, the question of denying the interest on the refund in terms of section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Priya Soparkar 323 itxa 894-16 with 38 itxa 920 of 2016-o (“the Act” for short) came up for consideration. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that such interest cannot bewithheld. The Tribunal observed as under.: “We have given a thoughtful consideration to therival submissions and have carefully perused theorders of the authorities below. The undisputedfacts are that the TDS certificates were submittedwith the return of income. It is also a fact that theTDS certificate has been issued by Reserve Bank ofIndia and various other Government agenciestherefore any defect in the TDS certificate cannotbe attributed to the assessee. Further, the taxdeducted at source by the deductors have beendeposited to the credit of the Government,therefore assessee cannot be denied interest u/s244A of the Act when the tax was deducted anddeposited in the exchequer in time, section244A(2) is not attracted. We draw support fromthe decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombayin the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra). We,accordingly set aside the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the interest forthe period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1998.” 6.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that under sub-section (2) of Section 244A it is only the Principal ChiefCommissioner. Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissionerwho alone can decide the question whether there was any delayon part of the assessee in the refund proceedings due to which Priya Soparkar 423 itxa 894-16 with 38 itxa 920 of 2016-o the interest should be withheld. The Tribunal, therefore, in theopinion of the counsel for the revenue incorrectly entered intosuch question and held that the delay cannot be attributed to theassessee. 6.Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that under sub-section (2) of Section 244A it is only the Principal ChiefCommissioner. Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissionerwho alone can decide the question whether there was any delayon part of the assessee in the refund proceedings due to which Priya Soparkar 423 itxa 894-16 with 38 itxa 920 of 2016-o the interest should be withheld. The Tribunal, therefore, in theopinion of the counsel for the revenue incorrectly entered intosuch question and held that the delay cannot be attributed to theassessee. 7.On theother hand, learned counsel for the assessee drewour attention to the decision of this Court in case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited[1]in which under similar factual situation the Court had madefollowing observations: “Section 244A(2) provides that in the event ofproceeding resulting in refund has been delayedfor reasons attributable to the assessee, the periodof delay so attributable shall be excluded from theperiod for which the interest is payable. In thepresent case, section 244A(2) is clearly notattracted. The proceeding resulting in the refundwas not delayed for reasons attributable to theassessee. Though the TDS Certificates were notsubmitted with the return and were filed duringthe course of the assessment proceedings, theTribunal has noted that the tax was in factdeducted at source at the right time. In thecircumstances, the Tribunal is correct in holdingthat since the benefit of TDS has been allowed tothe assessee, interest under section 244A couldnot be denied only on the ground that the TDScertificates were not furnished with the return of income. Tax was deducted and deposited in theexchequer in time. Section 244A(2) is notattracted. The appeal, therefore, does not raiseany substantial question of law and is dismissed.” 8.Itcan thus be seen that the Tribunal in its impugnedjudgment did not enter into the question of delay as referred tosub-section (2) of Section 244 A of the Act on the ground thatthe tax was deducted at source in time and also deposited in theGovernment Revenue and therefore, sub-section (2) of Section244A would not apply and no portion of interest can be denied tothe assessee. This is what this Court in case of Larsen & Toubro(supra) had also held. No question of law arises. Tax appeals aredismissed. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….