“Whetner.of)Thefactsandinthecircumstances Of Tne Case, The Tribunal Isrignt In Law In Nolding That The Revenue Isliable To Pay Interest On The Interest Adjusted v. Cit (Reported In 280 Itr Page643) Also In Case Of Cit V/S Gujuratn Fluorochemicals (Reported In 358 Itr Page 291) Andalso The Decision Of Hon'ble Kerala High Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2707 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASADLT.A. NO.70 OF 2O18 BETWEEN: 1.|THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX| C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA| 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. DILIPKUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SYNDICATE BANK|CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT|TAX CELL, HEAD OFFICE.MANIPAL-5/6 104PAN: AACCS 4699E. .., RESPONDENT(BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FORSRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. J6O0-A OF INCOME TAXACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.09.2017 PASSEDIN ITA NO.338/PAN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08,PRAYING TQ: | (1) 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.338/PAN/2016 DATED 08-09-2017 CONFIRMING THEORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE.ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, UDUPI & ETC. THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind,|learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.ManasaAnantnan,learned.counse|lfortneaSSeSSee, This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been preferred py the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2007-08. Tne appeal wasadmitted by a Bencn of this Court by order dated 09.11.2018on the following substantial question of law: “Whetner.Of)thefactsandInthecircumstances of tne case, the Tribunal Isrignt in law in nolding 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?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learnedcounsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaidsubstantial question of law has already been answered infavour of the assessee in the assessee's case itself, byjudgment dated 07.10.2020 passed in ITA No.582/20153.The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by thelearned counsel for the revenue. 3. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgmentdated07.10.72072passedInITANo.582/2013,the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answeredagainst the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal.The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE RV