TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding that interest under s. 244A should not be allowed on the payment of self-assessment tax. 4. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter amend/or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time." 2. We have heard the parties. 3. The brief facts relating to the issue involved in this appeal and as have been revealed from the records are that the assessee had furnished its return of income for asst. yr. 1996-97 on 15th Nov. 1996, after having made a payment of Rs. 75 lacs on account of self-assessment under s. 140A of the Act on 29th June, 1996. The return so filed was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act on 23rd Sept., 1997 determining the assessee's income at Rs. 3,21,80,397 and, consequently, a refund of Rs. 1,32,65,511 was allowed to the assessee as per refund voucher dt. 25th Sept., 1997. 3.1 Since the AO, while granting refund, had not allowed the assessee interest under s. 244A of the Act, on the amount of refund granted out of payment made under s. 140A of the Act, the assessee made an application under s. 154 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. The contention of the assessee mentioned at serial No. 3 above is found to be correct. Accordingly interest under s. 244A is granted upto the date of issue of refund i.e. upto 25th Sept., 1997. Revised income will be recomputed as under: Income as per AO under s. 143(3) dt. 23-11-1998 Rs. 3,22,10,397 Less: Allowable under s. 80G Rs. 2,50,000 --------------- Revised income Rs. 3,19,60,397 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resumed that assessee has nothing to say regarding the above-mentioned issue. As the mistake is apparent on record, the same is rectified under s. 154 of the IT Act. Total income is recomputed as under: Income as per order under s. 154 dt. 7-6-1999 Rs. 3,19,60,400 Add: Excess depreciation claimed i.e. 25% of Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 25,000 --------------- Revised total income Rs. 3,19,85,400  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat granting of interest by the AO on payment of self-assessment tax under s. 244A vide order under s. 154 was a mistake apparent from record as the issue was a debatable one and therefore rectification of such a mistake vide an order under s. 154 is to be held as justified. 10. Clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 244A provides payment of interest on excess payment by way of advance tax or TDS amount. Clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 244A provides payment of interest when the excess payment is made on the basis of notice of demand issued under s. 156 as provided vide Explanation below cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 244A of the Act. There is no provision in the said section for payment of interest on excess payment by way of self-assessment tax. The Authorised Representative has contended that all payments of whatsoever nature should be considered as the payments and hence interest under s. 244A should be allowed. However, this view does not find support from the provisions of the Act which provides allowing of interest only on excess payment of TDS amount, advance tax payment or payment in pursuance of a demand notice issued by the Department. The reliance on the case of D.J. Works is of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the present case. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "B" in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Late Smt. Niranjan M. Majitha for asst. yr. 1996-97 ITA No. 298/Mum/2000. Another decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" in the case of Punitaben Karsanbhai Patel Oral Specific Deferred Family Trust & Ors. vs. ITO dt. 7th July, 2006 [reported at (2006) 104 TTJ (Ahd)(SB) 773-Ed.] and decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "A" in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Haffkine Ajintha Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92 in ITA Nos. 1464 and 1465/Mum/1997, dt. 27th March, 2003. The learned counsel, further relied on the decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Special Bench "A" in the case of Punitaben Karsanbhai Patel Oral Specific Deferred Family Trust & Ors. vs. ITO (2006) 104 TTJ (Ahd)(SB) 773 : (2006) 103 ITD 175 (Ahd)(SB) and another decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "C" in the case of Dhanvi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. vs. AO (2000) 69 TTJ (Ahd) 757 : (2000) 72 ITD 245 (Ahd). Alternatively, it was submitted that in any case, the issue being debatable, interest once granted cannot be withdrawn in exercise of powers vested under s. 154 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to exercise his powers vested under s. 154 of the Act; meaning thereby that if it is the assessee who has sought the indulgence of the AO, the AO will reject the assessee's application, but if it is the officer who has issued notice under s. 154 of the Act in exercise of his powers suo motu, then the moment the assessee is able to establish that the issue involved in the proceedings, i.e., mistakes sought to be rectified by the AO is liable to be two interpretations or there is no mistake at all, then the AO is bound to drop the proceedings initiated by way of a notice under s. 154 of the Act. 7.3 From the above discussion, what we are intending to draw is that initiation of proceedings under s. 154 of the Act either by the assessee by way of a petition or by the officer in exercising of his suo motu powers will not automatically result in correction of the alleged mistake. The officer is bound to satisfy himself that the alleged mistake falls within the ambit of an apparent mistake of facts or of law. 8. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that to decide the issue in hand the first question for our consideration is as to whether there was any mistake in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief CIT or CIT whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-s. (3) of s. 143 or s. 144 or s. 147 or s. 154 or s. 155 or s. 250 or s. 254 or s. 260 or s. 262 or s. 263 or s. 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-s. (4) of s. 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-s. (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the AO shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the excess interest paid and requiring him to pay such amount; and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under s. 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three months from the end of the month in which such order was passed to the date on which refund was granted. The rate of interest under all the three sections was 15 per cent per annum. 11.3 These provisions, apart from being complicated, left certain gaps for which interest was not paid by the Department to the assessee for money remaining with the Government. To remove this inequity. as also to simplify the provisions in this regard, the Amending Act, 1987, has inserted a new s. 244A in the IT Act, applicable from the asst. yr. 1989-90 and onwards which contains all the provisions for payment of interest by the Department for delay in the grant of refunds. The rate of interest has been increased from the earlier 15 per cent per annum to 1.5 per cent per month or part of a month comprised in the period of delay in the grant of refund. The Amending Act, 1987, has also amended ss. 214, 243 and 244 to provide that the provisions of these sections shall not apply to the asst. yr. 1989-90 or any subsequent assessment years. 11.4 The provisions of the new s. 244A. The provision of the new s. 244A are as under: (i) sub-s. (1) provides that where in pursuance of any other pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esulted in refund, i.e., was the refund out of excess payment of TDS or excess payment of advance tax or excess payment of self-assessment tax under s. 140A of the Act had nothing to do with the grant of interest under s. 244A of the Act and, consequently, on refunds of Rs. 1,32,65,511 granted to the assessee on 25th Sept., 1997. Since the quantum of refund was more than the tax paid under s. 140A (Rs. 75 lacs), the assessee was entitled to interest on total refund including the refund of Rs. 75 lacs. Non-granting of interest by the Revenue, while computing the assessee's income under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was, therefore, in our opinion, a mistake of law, as well as the facts and was apparent from the records. The mistake was so obvious that there was no room for interpreting the law, as it stood at that time, in any way, other than as we have opined above. 9.1 To make the things clear, we are of the opinion that non-grant of interest to the assessee while granting refund of Rs. 1,32,65,511 was a mistake apparent from the record and, therefore, our answer to question posed by us at the beginning is "Yes" i.e. there was apparent mistake in intimation under s. 143(1)(a) which re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sept., 1997, on 25th Sept., 1997 are concerned, the following decisions have been brought to our notice by the Authorised Representative claiming the same to be in its favour and, therefore, we proceed to consider the same: (a) Decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. The brief facts of this case were that the assessee's surtax liability for asst. yr. 1976-77 was determined at Rs. 56,940 and after giving credit to the pre-assessment tax paid by the assessee which included the payment made on account of self-assessment (corresponding to s. to 140A, of the IT Act), a refund of Rs. 3,40,366 was determined. The AO did not allow the assessee interest under s. 18 of the Surtax Act r/w s. 244(1A) of the IT Act. Hence, the matter went upto the level of Hon'ble High Court when at the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred for opinion of the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT upheld the assessee's claim and question was answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant part of the order of Hon'ble High Court reads as under: "In the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of this Act for any delay in furnishing the return', makes it clear that there is no difference between: (i) the tax paid under s. 115WJ, which deals with advance tax in respect of fringe benefits; or (ii) the TCS under s. 206C; or (iii) any tax paid by way of advance tax or any tax treated as paid under s. 199, which deals with credit for tax deducted, which are provided under s. 244A(1)(a). 7. The proviso to s. 244A(1)(a) makes it clear that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than 10 per cent, on regular assessment with regard to the refund of advance tax paid under s. 115WJ in respect of fringe benefits; (ii) TCS under s. 206C; and (iii) advance tax or any tax treated as paid under s. 199. But, with respect to other tax as per s. 244A(1)(b), the interest shall be payable even if the amount is less than 10 per cent, of the tax as determined under s. 143(1) or on the regular assessment, because there is no proviso to s. 244A(1)(b) as provided under s. 244A(1)(a). 8. That apart, the law is well-settled that even for the refund of tax paid under s. 140A on self-assessment, the assessee is entitled to interest as held by this Court in CIT vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment tax would qualify for the interest. The words 'In any other case' appearing in cl. (b) as rightly submitted on behalf of the assessee are very wide and cover all the cases of tax payments which are not mentioned in cl. (al this should settle the issue in favour of the assessee.' 5. Having heard both the parties, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund arising out of the self-assessment tax paid because the provisions of s. 244A(1)(b) covers the cases of self-assessment tax also." (b) Decision of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench "B" In the case of Dy. CIT vs. Late Smt. Niranjan M. Majitha in ITA No. 298/Mum/2000, dt. 11th Oct., 2001. In this appeal, the Hon'ble Tribunal, after relying on the Circular No. 549, dt. 31st Aug., 1989 reported in [(1990) 82 CTR (St) 1 : (1990) 182 ITR (St) 1] at p. 48 and various decisions, allowed the assessee's claim of interest under s. 244A(1)(b) of the Act on refund arising out of self-assessment tax paid under s. 140A of the Act. The relevant part as contained in para Nos. 11 to 15 reads as under: "11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Sec. 244A provides for payment of interest to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rightly pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the background in which s. 244A was introduced is very important. This has been explained in the circular to which we have already referred to. In para 11.3 [(1990) 82 CTR (St) 1 : (1990) 182 ITR (St) 1 at p. 48], the Board itself has recognised that under the old provisions, there were certain gaps for which interest was not paid by the Department to the assessee for money remaining with the Government. The equitable mortgage (sic) laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. is that the assessee is entitled to interest in respect of amounts paid by him in excess of the demand, whatever be the nature of the tax payment, because interest is compensation paid for use of the money by the Government and self-assessment tax stands in no different footing from the other payments such as TDS, advance tax etc. If it is paid in excess of the demanded tax. This conclusion is supported by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. Sec. 244(1A) which was considered by the Supreme Court provided for interest on refund of amounts paid by the assessee after 31st March, 1975 in pursuance of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. ITO (1992) 102 CTR (Guj) 212 : (1992) 194 ITR 659 (Guj). In that case there was no assessment at all and the question of refund was considered in that perspective which is quite different from the present case. The income involved in the substantive assessment as well as in the protective assessments are one and the same. The income has been assessed substantively in the hands of the main trusts and the demand subsequently settled under KVSS. It is quite unnecessary to repeat that the income has already been assessed in the hands of the main trusts. Therefore, nothing remains thereafter to be assessed in the hands of the beneficiary trusts. as far as the income of main trust is concerned. Moreover, a case of assessment can be contemplated in the present cases because the stand taken by the assessees is that the income of the main trusts has to be assessed in the hands of the individual beneficiary trusts. It is on the basis of that proposition that the returns were filed by the beneficiary trusts. While returns were filed by the beneficiary trusts in their individual capacities, they are in fact offering income for taxation. Sec. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income need to be assessed in the hands of the main trusts and it was on the basis of that proposition, the assessment orders were passed by the Revenue; that the assessments have been made on substantive basis on the main trusts. As already stated the assessments were repeated in the hands of the beneficiary trusts on protective basis. The assessee always objected to the above proposition made out by the Revenue. It is for that reason matters were taken before appellate authorities. When these matters were pending before the different authorities that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was promulgated and the assessee got an occasion to settle the dispute by accepting the impugned income to be assessed in the hands of the main trusts on substantive basis. The main trusts paid the taxes as per the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and certificates were issued by the concerned authorities in compliance thereof. The beneficiary trusts having already been assessed on protective basis, rectification petition under s. 154 was filed before the AO to exclude the impugned income from the assessments of the beneficiaries. The AO, on the basis of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme orders and relevant records,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fe vs. N.D. Parekh, CIT. Special Civil Application No. 622 of 1981, rendered on 20th Aug., 1981, has laid down the approach that the authorities must adopt in such matters in the following terms: The Supreme Court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 and Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibal R. Tarte AIR 1975 SC 1297, that the State authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful right and the lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The State authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt.' 39. In view of the above, we find that the orders passed by the assessing authority were not erroneous; but, on the other hand, were just and proper. As we find no error in the orders of the assessing authority we find that the CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 and pass the revision orders contested herein. 40. Now we conclude here. For the reasons stated above, both on merit as well as in law, we find that the revision orders passed by the CIT in these cases are not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o jurisdiction to rectify his earlier order dt. 7th June, 1999 in exercise of powers vested under s. 154 of the Act. 17. In a nutshell, we are of the opinion that the notice under s. 154 issued by the AO on 6th June, 2000 proposing to withdraw the interest allowed as per order under s. 154 of the Act dt. 7th June, 1999 was illegal and bad in law and, therefore, the consequential order passed by the AO under s. 154 of the Act on 16th March, 2000 withdrawing the interest granted as per order under s. 154 of the Act dt. 7th June, 1999 also was illegal and bad in law and, therefore, order of the CIT(A) upholding such an illegal order cannot be sustained. 18. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the latest decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. which is directly on the issue and has been discussed in para No. 12(ii)(b) of this order, and, therefore, for the reasons stated hereinbefore and following the aforesaid decision, we set aside the order of Revenue authorities withdrawing the interest allowed under s. 244A of the Act vide order under s. 154 of the Act dt. 7th June, 1999. 19. Additional ground: The ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umbai Bench "B" in the case of Jethiben K. Patel Disc. Trust vs. Dy. CIT in ITA No. 4364/Mum/2000 for asst. yr. 1994-95, dt. 23rd April, 2004; (6) Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "C" in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Harsiddh Sp. Family Trust in ITA No. 360/And/2001 for asst. yr. 1989-90 dt. 13th Jan., 2006; (7) Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Nirma Ltd. in ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2000 for asst. yr. 1995-96, dt. 30th June, 2006. 24. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that assessee is not entitled to any interest on interest because so far as decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the interest as compensation and not as per provisions of IT Act. The learned Departmental Representative, further submitted that the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT for asst. yr. 1995-96 in ITA Nos. 2348 and 2349/Ahd/2004, dt. 31st July, 2006, has discussed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. and dismissed the assessee's claim. He, therefore, submitted that the assessee is not entitled to any inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, stood granted along with. 29.2 The assessee moved an application dt. 3rd Oct., 1997 under s. 154 of the Act on 10th Oct., 1997 claiming interest under s. 244A on the refund amount of Rs. 132.66 lacs, and which went unattended. 29.3 Subsequently, that is, after the completion of assessment for the relevant year under s. 143(3) on 23rd Nov., 1998. the assessee moved another application under s. 154 (dt. 5th March, 1999) on 9th March, 1999, requesting the AO to, among others, dispose of its earlier application under s. 154. In response, the assessee stood granted interest on the amount of refund that stood determined on assessment, i.e., Rs. 132.93 lacs (the actual refund working to Rs. 132.66 lacs on account of adjustment of some past liabilities for Rs. 0.27 lacs), upto 25th Sept., 1997, i.e., the date of grant of refund, vide order under s. 154 dt. 7th June, 1999. 29.4 As the interest allowed included that on self-assessment tax, the AO suo motu invoked the provision of s. 154 of the Act to withdraw the same to the extent it stood allowed on the self-assessment tax component of Rs. 75 lacs, vide order dt. 16th March, 2000. 29.5 The learned CIT(A), in appeal, confirm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. In the said decision, interest under s. 244A on the refund including/comprising self-assessment tax stood allowed on processing under s. 143(1)(a) and which stood later withdrawn by invoking the provisions of s. 154. The issue of grant of interest under s. 244A on self-assessment tax was held as debatable and, therefore, could not be said to be a 'mistake' rectifiable under s. 154. I shall presently discuss both the aspects of his order. 31. Taking up the second aspect first, in my view. the decision in the case of CIT vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. settles the debate as to whether the issue under reference is debatable or not in favour of the view that it is so; that being the reason why the order under s. 154 withdrawing interest already allowed stood quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. As such, the entire discussion made in the earlier part of my learned Brother's order, which endeavours to establish that the issue is not debatable, so that the AO's action of allowing interest on self-assessment tax was not one on which two views are reasonably or conceivably possible and, hence, could not be 'rectified' by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er s. 154. What the AO in the present case, even as sought to be clarified by the learned CIT(A), has done is only to rectify his mistake in treating the non-allowance of interest on the refund to the extent it relates to self-assessment tax, as a 'mistake', i.e., contrary to the decision in the case of Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. and, consequently, "rectifying" it vide order under s. 154 (dt. 7th June, 1999), per the subsequent order under s. 154 (dt. 16th March, 2000) and, thereby restoring the original intimation with regard to the impugned interest, i.e., to the same effect as the said decision through the quashing the order under s. l54. There is nothing in law to prevent the rectification of a rectification order, provided, of course, that the subject-matter of rectification constitutes' a 'mistake'. In the present case, the non-allowance of interest under s. 244A (on self-assessment tax) in the first instance was definitely not a mistake, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and, therefore, its 'rectification' was a mistake committed per the first order under s. 154, and which (mistake), stood rectified per the second order. 31.2 The relevant part of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the course of the previous year itself. Payment by way of self-assessment tax would, thus, arise only where there has been a short payment on account of advance tax or TDS (or TCS). Resultantly, where an assessee, upon finalizing his return of income for an assessment year, finds the total prepaid tax as short than that for which he is properly assessable under the Act, for any reason, he pays the balance amount, representing the said shortfall, by way of self-assessment tax, furnishing its proof along with the return of income [s. 140A(1)). It is for this reason that the same stands titled as self-assessment tax. As such, for one, it is only towards the assessee's admitted liability to tax for the relevant assessment year and, secondly, ought not to or would not, that is, generally, give rise to a refund of tax; the assessee being not required to deposit tax in excess of his liability under the Act, particularly as it stands determined by him after the close of year and after finalization of his return of income. So, however, refund of self-assessment tax may arise, for any reason as (say) where the assessee claimed deduction (sic) its disallowance, but does not, all the same,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined under sub-s. (1) of s. 143 or on regular assessment; (b) in any other case, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period or periods from the date or, as the case may be, dates of payment of the tax or penalty to the date on which the refund is granted. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, 'date of payment of tax or penalty' means the date on and from which the amount of tax or penalty specified in the notice of demand issued under s. 156 is paid in excess of such demand. (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief CIT or CIT whose decision thereon shall be final." 32.3 It clearly, provides for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the said circular seeks to explain, does not contemplate a refund arising, out of self-assessment tax; its three examples relating to refund arising out of prepaid tax under situations of timely filing and late filing of the return of income, and that arising out of payment of tax, as demanded in regular assessment, and which later stands to be refunded on being revised under appellate proceedings. Could, it may be asked, the Revenue be said to be liable (to interest), without the relevant debt becoming due, i.e., for the period for which no liability outstands in respect of the refund? It is only after the determination of the assessee's tax liability under s. 143(1) or on regular assessment that a refund, representing the Revenue's liability to the assessee gets determined or crystallized. Rather, if not so understood, apart from, to my mind, not having any mandate in law, the provision (for allowance of interest) could be subject to abuse in that the assessees could deposit amounts, ostensibly as self-assessment tax, to avail of interest by placing their surplus funds with the Revenue. 32.5 Thus, the law, to the extent that can be reasonably said to have been laid down....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest stood not allowed in the first instance, was without any application of mind by the AO in the matter, so that the first order which stood passed by him in the matter is only that allowing interest on the entire refund under s. 154 on 7th June, 1999. As such, having been allowed consciously, by due application of mind, adopting one of the possible views, no rectification is permissible, which was done per the second order under s. 154 (dt. 16th March, 2000) in this regard firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the intimation (dt. 23rd Sept., 1997) stood passed without any application of mind, nor any warrant in law to so contend; especially in view of the decision in the case of Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., where the interest stood allowed in the first instance only under s. 143(1)(a). Rather, it could well be that the first order under s. 154 (dt. 7th June, 1999) allowing interest suffers from this infirmity, with the assessee being allowed interest on the entire refund of Rs. 132.93 lacs w.e.f. 1st April, 1996, i.e., without making any distinction between the prepaid tax and self-assessment tax and which, if so, would clearly exhibit that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its adjustment against the tax demand raised, vide the notice of demand (or deemed notice of demand), upto the date of grant of the refund. so that the assessee is entitled to interest thereon, in the present case, only w.e.f. 23rd Sept., 1997 (to the date of grant of refund of the principal amount), i.e., subject to any specific provision of the Act (or the rules framed thereunder) with regard to the working of the period of delay, if any. Non-allowance of interest, therefore, on the said amount, for any other period, cannot be said to be a matter of settled law, so that adoption of any view one way or the other; could not be subject to rectification, by treating it to be a mistake apparent from record. And which, therefore, being not valid in the eyes of law, stood correctly and validly rectified by the AO. I decide accordingly. 34. As regards the additional ground (which stands dealt with vide paras 19 to 25 of the order), my learned Brother has remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for a decision in accordance with law, even as both the sides have cited case law in their favour before us. In my view it is incumbent on the Tribunal, after having admitted the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the withdrawal by the AO under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') of the interest allowed under s. 244A on the refund granted, invoking the provisions of s. 154 of the Act, to the extent attributable to the payment of self-assessment tax, is sustainable in law, or not? And further, if sustainable, to what extent?" 26th Sept., 2008 In consequence upon difference of opinion between the JM and the AM with respect to the outcome of the assessee's appeal under reference, Your Honour had been requested to refer one question for the opinion of Third Member and Your Honour had been pleased to nominate Hon'ble Shri R.P. Garg, Vice President, Tribunal Ahmedabad Zone as the Third Member-as per your order dt. 31st July, 2008. 2. Now, it has come to notice that there was difference of opinion on another issue also, which relates to the assessee's claim of interest on delayed payment of interest and was raised by way of additional ground. 3. In vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dt. 7th June, 1999. 4. Subsequently, the AO issued a notice under s. 154 of the Act on 6th March, 2000 proposing inter alia to withdraw the excess interest paid under s. 244A of the Act and passed an order on 16th March, 2000 withdrawing the interest granted under s. 244A on the quantum of refund granted out of payment of Rs. 75 lakhs being self-assessment tax under s. 140A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO by observing that sub-s. (3) of s. 244A provides that as a result of an order under s. 154 etc., the amount on which interest was payable under sub-s. (1) is increased or reduced, the interest has to be increased or reduced as the case may be on excess/short interest paid by the assessee. The CIT(A) also observed that the amount of interest should not have been allowed as the issue was a debatable one and that the first order allowing interest was a mistake from record and was debatable one. While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that there is no provisions for grant of interest on excess payment by way of self-assessment. It has to be eithe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iability to pay self-assessment tax under s. 140A is to be on the total income as per the return and based on that there was no liability on the assessee. The refund became due on determination of liability under s. 143(1)(a) or on regular assessment and not before. Otherwise it could be liable to be abused in the sense that an assessee can deposit amounts ostensibly as self-assessment tax to avail of interest by placing their surplus funds with the Revenue. He agreed with the AO in not allowing the interest on refund under s. 143(1) stating that it cannot be said to be a matter of settled law, so that adoption of any view one way or the other, could not be subject to rectification, by treating it to be a mistake apparent from record. He also relied on the order of the AO in allowing the interest on the refund from the date of adjustment on final assessment to date of refund. 8. Parties are heard and rival submissions considered. We shall first take up the first issue first. It is true that the assessee was not required to pay any tax based on the return filed by the assessee because even the TDS and advance tax paid was in excess of the tax liability. It was thus paid not a tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief CIT or CIT whose decision thereon shall be final. (3) Where, as a result of an order under sub-s. (3) of s. 143 or s. 144 or s. 147 or s. 154 or s. 155 or s. 250 or s. 254 or s. 260 or s. 262 or s. 263 or s. 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-s. (4) of s. 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-s. (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the AO shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the excess interest paid and requiring him to pay such amount; and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under s. 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and subsequent assessment years." 10. This section came w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 and is applicable to assessment years from 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as on issue of intimation under s. 143(1)(a) i.e., on 23rd Sept., 1997. The refund was granted immediately thereafter on 25th Sept., 1997. There is no delay and therefore the assessee would not be entitled to any interest. 15. The question of granting interest on refund of self-assessment came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. while dealing with the issue relating to payment of interest under s. 244(1A) and the Court, held: "(ii) If any tax paid pursuant to an assessment order after 31st March, 1975 (which will include TDS and advance tax to the extent the same has been retained and treated by the ITO as payment of tax in discharge of the assessee's tax liability in the assessment order), becomes refundable wholly or in part as a result of any appellate or other order passed, the Central Government will have to pay the assessee interest on the refundable amount under s. 244(1A). For the purpose of this section, the amount of advance payment of tax and the amount of TDS must be treated as payment of income-tax pursuant to an order of assessment on and from the date when these amounts were set off against the tax demand raised in the assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). The issue would become academic in the sense that there was no delay in granting refund and the assessee would not be entitled to interest. If there were no interest, the question of granting interest on interest would not arise. However in view of the reference on the difference, it is to be resolved by the Third Member. 19. The Ahmedabad Bench in aforesaid GSFC case considered various aspects and decision on the issue and found a marked difference in the language used in these two provisions in s. 244 as were in force upto the asst. yr. 1988-89 and s. 244A as apply w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 i.e., from asst. yr. 1989-90 onwards. In s. 244 the interest is granted on the 'refund of the amount' whereas s. 244A provides for the interest under cl. (a) thereof on the amount of 'refund out of payment of any tax paid by or collected from the assessee' or treated as paid under s. 199, which is to run from 1st day of April of the assessment year; and cl. (b) grants interest in 'other cases' which is to run from the date of payment of tax or penalty paid in excess of tax demanded. In both the possibilities the refund must be out of any tax or penalty paid by or collected from the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Delhi High Court also referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in D.J. Works case and read it as taking the same view. This supports the view of the appellant on the correct reading of the Gujarat decision. 27. As already noticed in para supra, the Madras High Court in Needle Industries (P) Ltd. case has also, interpreted the phrase 'any amount' in the same manner when considering the provisions' of s. 244(1A) of the Act, which also uses the same phrase, in the context of interest payable by the Revenue. In express terms the Court held that the expression referred not only to the tax but also to interest. The Court agreed with a similar view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Ambat Echukutty Menon. Both these were cases where the Court was called upon to decide whether further interest was payable by the Revenue on interest which had to be repaid to assessee. 28. In our opinion, the appellant is entitled to interest under s. 244 and/or s. 244A of the Act in accordance with the terms and provisions of the said sections. The interest previously granted to it has been computed upto 27th March, 1981 and 31st March, 1986 (under different sections of the Act) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not followed the decision of this Court in Narendra Doshi's case on the ground that this Court did not decide that further interest was payable by interpretation of the Act. What was urged before the High Court was that this Court decided the matter by upholding the Gujarat High Court view which proceeded on the basis that the provisions of the Act did not provide for such farther interest. The High Court has merely noted the decision of the Madras High Court in Needle Industries case without dealing with the same in any manner. The High Court similarly noted and failed to deal with the Kerala High Court's decision in Ambat Echukutty Menon's case and a previous decision of the Bombay High Court itself in the case of Suresh B. Jain's case. 33. In the present appeal, the respondents have argued that the compensation claimed by the appellant is for delay by the Revenue in paying of interest, and this does fall within the meaning of refund as set out in s. 237 of the Act. The relevant provision is s. 240 of the Act which clearly lays down that what is relevant is whether any amount has become due to an assessee, and further the phrase any amount will also encompass interest.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the Act, varying from 12 per cent to 15 per cent which would be on the higher side. Though, we hold that the Department is solely responsible for the delayed payment, we feel that the interest of justice would be amply met if we order payment of simple interest @ 9 per cent p.a. from the date it became payable till the date it is actually paid. Even though the appellant is entitled to interest prior to 31st March, 1986, learned counsel for the appellant fairly restricted his claim towards interest from 31st March, 1986 to 27th March, 1998 on which date a sum of Rs. 40,84,906 was refunded." 24. From the headnotes of ITR reports, it was observed that it was a concession by the assessee for claim @ 9 per cent. It however does not seems to be a correct report, because from a reading of the above para it would be clear that the concession was for the period of interest and not for rate of interest. Be that as it may, it also shows that grant of interest on interest is more by way of compensation under general principles and not under the Act. In any case it was under the pre-existing provisions of law upto asst. yr. 1988-89 contained in s. 244 whereas we are concerned in this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an assessee to further interest on that amount of interest either cl. (a) of s. 244A as it was not a refund out of any tax paid by him or collected from him; nor under cl. (b) as the interest is to start from the date of payment of tax or penalty and in the case of a refund of interest there is no and cannot be the date of payment by an assessee." 26. The ITO is a statutory authority. A statutory authority has to act in accordance with the power bestowed upon it under the statute. He can levy and collect the interest on delay in payment of tax provided the statute provides for such obligation of the assessee under the statute and not otherwise. Similarly, the authorities can pay interest on interest if the statute provides for the same and not otherwise. The Tribunal, as an appellate authority, is likewise a statutory authority. It is not a Court of equity. It has to, therefore, act as per the provisions of IT Act and if a benefit or a relief is not available to an assessee under the provisions of the Act it cannot be granted on the grounds of equity or the general provisions of law as can be granted by the High Court or Supreme Court in their writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lakhs, cannot be sustained and has to be cancelled (sic); and (b) the issue raised by the assessee by way of additional ground, is a question of law and should be and is decided on merits and need not be remanded to the AO for his consideration. 30. The matter may now be placed before Division Bench for passing the final order in accordance with majority opinion. H.L. KARWA, J.M.: 17th July, 2009 It was in consequence upon difference of opinion between the Members constituting Ahmedabad Bench-D, Ahmedabad that the following questions were got referred to for the opinion of the learned Third Member, Shri R.P. Garg, Senior Vice President (through the Hon'ble President, Tribunal): "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the AO passed under s. 154 of the Act on 16th March, 2000, withdrawing the interest under s. 244A of the Act, already allowed on the refund due out of payment of self-assessment (under s. 140A of the Act) of Rs. 75 lakhs, be sustained or cancelled? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the issue raised by the assessee by w....