2017 (10) TMI 1252 - AT - Income Tax

Refund Adjustment Order Upheld, Interest Priority Confirmed

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (2) (1), Mumbai Office of the DCIT-2 (2) (1) Versus State Bank of Saurashtra (Now Merged with SBI)

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the adjustment of the refund first towards the interest due and then towards the tax due. The decision ... Manner of grand of refund - amount to be adjusted with interest first or with the principal amount - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT) and case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. CIT (2013 (9) TMI 451 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and the same was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. ACIT (2016 (8) TMI 688 - ITAT MUMBAI) wherein it is held that while granting refund in pursuance to appeal effect order, the amount of refund granted earlier should be adjusted first against interest on earlier refund and thereafter balance amount should be adjusted against principal component of tax in refund granted earlier, on which assessee is entitled to get interest under section 244A of the Act. Issues Involved:- Adjustment of refund towards interest and tax components.- Application of relevant judicial precedents.- Interpretation of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adjustment of Refund Towards Interest and Tax Components:The primary issue in this appeal is the adjustment of the refund granted to the assessee. The CIT(A) directed the AO to adjust the refund first towards interest and then towards the tax amount refundable. The Revenue contended that this adjustment method would lead to an excess grant of interest, contrary to the department's practice and legislative intent.2. Application of Relevant Judicial Precedents:The CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v/s CIT (361 ITR 646), which held that refunds should first be adjusted against interest due and then against tax due. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 658 (SC) and followed by the Tribunal in Union Bank of India Vs. ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 348 (Mumbai-Trib.).3. Interpretation of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Tribunal examined whether the amount of refund granted earlier should be adjusted first against the interest component of the earlier refund and then against the principal component of tax or vice versa. The Tribunal referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s interpretation in the case of CIT v. HEG Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 331, which clarified that the interest component partakes the character of the 'amount due' under Section 244A, and thus, interest should be computed on the balance amount due if only part payment is made.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the refund should be adjusted first against the interest due and then against the tax due. This decision aligns with the principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that the same method applied while collecting taxes is followed while issuing refunds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, reiterating the judicial precedent that interest on refunds should be computed by adjusting the refund first towards the interest component.Conclusion:The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed, directing the AO to adjust the refund first towards the interest component and then towards the tax component, ensuring the assessee receives the correct amount of interest under Section 244A of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency and fairness in tax administration, aligning with judicial precedents and statutory provisions.