"Whether.of)Thefactsandinthecircumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Isright In Law Tn Holding That The Revenue Isliable To Pay Interest On The Interest Adjusted v. Gujuratn Fluorochemicals (Reported In 358 Itr Page 291) Andalso The Decision Of Hon'ble Kerala High Courtin The Case Of Cit V/S G.b. Transports(Reported In 158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 18[TH|]DAY OF DECEMBER 2020.PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD1LT.A. NO.807 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1.|THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX| C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD MANGALURU-5/5001. 2.|THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MALPE ROAD, AADIUDUPI AMBALAPADI PO, UDUPI-5/6103. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND* M/S. SYNDICATE BANK|CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT|TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICEMANIPAL-5 7/610PAN:AACCS 4699E. (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 02.05.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1189/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88-05, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW,STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS.PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURUIN ITA NO.1189/BANG/2016 DATED 02.05.2017 CONFIRMING THEORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE.ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, UDUPI & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.ManasaAnantnan,jiearneccounselforthe aSse@ess€e 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has|been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 1987-88. Tne appeal wasadmitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated|24.01.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether.Of)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isright in law tn holding that the Revenue Isliable to pay interest on the interest adjusted| against regular tax by relying on the earlier|provision 214, when there is specific provisionclause (b) of subsection (1) of section 244A Is available under the Act for grant of interest onrefunds and witnout considering the decisions|of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik|Asia Ltd V/s. CIT (reported in 280 ITR page|643), also in case of CIT V/s Gujuratn Fluoro|Chemicals (reported in 358 ITR page 291) andalso the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court|in the case of CIT V/s G.B. Transports|(reported in 158 ITR page 548) 2?" 3. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submits that the substantialquestion of law involved in this appeal has already beenanswered against the revenue and in favour of the assesseeIn."‘COMMISSTONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SYNDICATEBANK’ (2020) 120 TAXMANN.COM 227 (KAR)The.aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learnedcounsel for the revenue. 4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, thesubstantial question of law involved in this appeal isanswered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.In the result, the appeal fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGESd/-JUDGE RV|