2004 (8) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessing Officer has not allowed the further interest on interest claimed by the assessee under section 214. The assessee has moved an application under section 154 for the grant of interest under section 214 for the delay. The Assessing Officer has rejected the application under section 154 against which the assessee went to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A), by the impugned order, has directed the Assessing Officer to allow interest on interest for the delay from 27-5-1978 to 30-9-1992 on the refund of Rs. 1,82,248. Not being satisfied, the department is before us. 3. With this background, the ld. D/R submitted that interest on interest is not allowable as there is no statutory provision available in the Income-tax Act. Further, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terest. He also admitted that the cases of Narendra Doshi and D.J. Works were filed under the Writ Petition and not in regular appeals. So lastly he made a request to uphold the order of the CIT(A). 5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it is evident that there is no provision of granting the interest on interest. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd had the occasion to discuss the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Doshi. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. at page 80 observed: "In CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 254 ITR 606 (SC) the matter before the Supreme Court was relating to the correctness of the answer of the High Court of Mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not on the point of liability to pay interest on interest under the provisions of the said Act but was on account of the peculiar facts of the case and in spite of the absence of the provisions in that regard in the said Act. Under no circumstances, could the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in D.J. Work's case (1992) 195 ITR 227 or in Chimanlal's case (1994) 210 ITR 419 be said to have merged with the order of the Supreme Court in Narendra Doshi's case (2002) 254 ITR 606." 6. Finally, the Bombay High Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd.'s case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing at page 108 that: "Neither does any statutory provision entitle the petitioners to claim any such amount or part thereof, nor have the petitioner....