TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal against the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2248/Del/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. The question before the Tribunal was as to whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee filed against the charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit under Section 115JAA? 3. The Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") on 25.10.2004 whereby excess MAT credit allowed earlier to the assessee was withdrawn and a demand of Rs 64,32,260/- was raised. The assessee's contention was that the interest under Section 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal, by its order dated 30.04.2008 passed in the said MA No. 624/2007, recalled the earlier order dated 09.08.2007. 7. While passing the order of recall, the Tribunal noted that initially an intimation under Section 143(1) dated 29.09.2000 was prepared in which a refund of Rs 56,84,908/- was allowed to the assessee. However, on 22.09.2004, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee proposing to rectify the intimation under Section 154 of the said Act. The particulars of the mistake proposed to be rectified were indicated in the notice as under:- "You have been allowed MAT credit of Rs 1,07,13,704/- whereas the maximum MAT credit allowable in the assessment year 1999-2000 under the provisions of Section 115JAA is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indicated above, that order of the Tribunal has been recalled and the Tribunal considered the matter afresh, which has finally been disposed of by the order dated 24.10.2008, which is impugned herein by the revenue. 10. One of the issues which was of prime importance before the Tribunal was whether the interest under Section 234B and 234C was levied by the Assessing Officer by invoking Section 154 of the said Act or not? The Tribunal observed that from the sequence of events, it would be apparent that it was the Assessing Officer, who had, in fact, first levied interest by invoking Section 154 of the said Act by passing his order dated 25.10.2004. The contention was that in doing so, the Assessing Officer committed two errors. First of all....