Uday S. Jagtap v. M/S. Tatapower Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 946 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 .. Appellant v/s. Central Bank of India .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Fenil Bhatt i/b Tejas shah for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 14[th] OCTOBER, 2019 P.C. 1.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act) challenges the order dated 22[nd] July, 2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This appeal relates toAssessment Year 2008-09. 2.The Revenue has urged only the following substantial questionof law for our consideration :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interestportion of the refund issued earlier has to be ignored for thepurpose of calculating interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act,1961, payable to the assessee, on refund arising out of theorder giving effect to other of appellate authority? 3.The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal byfollowing its order in respect of the same respondent on an identicalisssue for the Assessment Years 1991-92, 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2007-08 and 2008-09. decided on 31[st] December, 2014 wherein identicalcontroversy was adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 4.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenuevery fairly states that the Revenue’s appeal against the aforesaidorder of the Tribunal dated 31[st] December, 2014 being Income TaxAppeal Nos. 649/16, 653/16, 654/16, 655/16 and 889 of 2016 weredismissed by this Court on 1[st] August, 2018. This by following thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. TataPower Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1560 of 2013) decided on7[th] July, 2015. 5.In the above view, as the issue stands concluded by thedecision of this Court, the question as proposed does not give rise toany substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)