TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, set aside the issues relating to the determination of the ALV of the house, B-12, Greater Kailash New Delhi, as also deductibility of the interest paid to Sharma Estate Agency and Sharma Property Dealers. There was only one "other objection" before the Tribunal. That was with regard to the disallowance of interest paid to Bank of Baroda. On this point, the assessee's claim was rejected and the order of the authorities below confirmed. In other words, only part of the assessment as it stood after the first Appellate Authority's order was confirmed. The other part, i.e. relating to the determination of the annual value and allowability of interest payments to Sharma Estate Agency and Sharma Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the order of the Tribunal 'C', Bench New Delhi, dt.22nd March, 1982arising out of appeal No. ITA 927/Del/81: . Rs. Net income as per order under s. 250 dt.22-1-1981 . 1,58,206 Less : The ITAT set aside the following additions : . . (i) higher rental value of free furnished accommodation 57,000 . (ii) interest to Sharma Estate and Property Dealer 13,360 73,360 . 87,846 or say . 87,850 Issue necessary forms. Allow credit for taxes paid and interest under s. 244(1A) as per law". The assessee accordingly, received refund of Rs. 14,542 as interest under s. 244(1A) which reads as under: "(1A) Where the whole or any part of the refund referred to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07,419 Add : Interest withdrawn allowed earlier under s. 244(1A) 14,542 1,21,961 Less : Recovered as per original assessment 50,485 Payable : 71,746" One of the contentions taken before the Commissioner (A) in its appeal from the aforesaid order of 28th Nov., 1983, was that the ITO wrongly withdrew interest refund of Rs. 14,542 originally allowed to the assessee under s. 244(1A). The Commissioner (A) noted that the ITO had not given any reason or justification of withdrawing the said interest allowed originally. He further held that even otherwise, the withdrawal was unjustified as the ITO had no power to withdraw interest already allowed under s. 244(1A) of the Act, He, therefore, directed that the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the annual value of the Greater Kailash house and also the allowability of certain interest payments. Until these issues were finally settled by the ITO by way of a fresh order, which itself would be the subject of appeal proceedings, no consequential order could be passed by the ITO and even if he did, there was no question of his allowing any interest under s. 244(1A) in any case on the basis of such an interim order. Interest under s. 244(1A) could be determined only on the completion of the assessment following the appellate order because the interest element related to the difference between the tax already paid by the assessee and the tax that came to be determined as payable for the assessment year as a whole following the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is liable to pay as tax for the assessment year in question in pursuance of an order of assessment. This is not in dispute before us. This has come to be Rs. 66,655. The second component is the amount actually paid by the assessee in pursuance of the order of assessment as finally modified in appeal. Under the order of Commissioner (A) dt.10th Sept., 1984which became final, the total payable, as already noted, amounted to Rs. 66,655. Here we find that the ITO has allowed a credit of only Rs. 50,485 as tax already recovered". This figure does not appear to be correct in the light of the factual statement placed before us for the assessee. Unfortunately, the Commissioner (A)'s order in appeal before us is in the most cryptic terms possibl....