TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs recalculating interest under Section 244A for fairness and equity</h1> <h3>Union Bank of India Versus ACIT LTU, Mumbai</h3> Union Bank of India Versus ACIT LTU, Mumbai - [2016] 52 ITR (Trib) 221 Issues Involved:1. Granting of interest under Section 244A on the interest due to the appellant.2. Method of adjustment of refunds by the Assessing Officer (AO).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Granting of Interest under Section 244AThe primary issue in this case revolves around the correct computation of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the AO granted a lesser amount of interest (Rs. 64,53,58,824) than what was due (Rs. 65,73,42,440). The appellant argued that the AO should have adjusted the refund first against the interest due and then against the principal tax amount, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. HEG Ltd (324 ITR 331) and the Delhi High Court's decision in India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. CIT (361 ITR 646). The AO, however, adjusted the refund first against the principal tax amount, which led to a discrepancy in the interest calculation.Issue 2: Method of Adjustment of RefundsThe appellant argued that the method used by the AO for adjusting refunds was incorrect. The AO assumed that the balance to be refunded was always the interest portion, which is contrary to the department's method of first adjusting payments towards interest when charging interest from assessees. The appellant cited the decision of the ITAT in their own case (ITA No. 571,574/Mum/2013) and argued that the CIT(A) erred in distinguishing this decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Gujarat Fluoro Ltd (358 ITR 291), which was not applicable to the facts of the appellant's case.Tribunal's Findings:On Granting of Interest under Section 244A:The Tribunal noted that the issue was whether the refund should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the principal tax amount or vice versa. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in the appellant's own case and the Delhi High Court's ruling in India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. CIT, which supported the appellant's contention. The Tribunal emphasized that the interest component should be considered part of the 'amount due' under Section 244A, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. HEG Ltd.On Method of Adjustment of Refunds:The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not follow the Tribunal's earlier orders due to the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, which stated that no interest could be granted on the amount of interest. However, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant was not seeking interest on interest but rather the correct method of adjusting refunds. The Tribunal highlighted that fairness and justice demand the same principle be applied while granting refunds as is applied while collecting taxes, as per the explanation to Section 140A(1).Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in not following the Tribunal's earlier decisions and the Delhi High Court's ruling. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and then the balance towards the tax component. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the need for fairness, equity, and good conscience in the adjustment of refunds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
