TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal:- "1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to grant interest U/S.244A on the self assessment tax paid, without considering the legal position that from 01.04.1989 interest u/s.244A is allowable only on advance tax/TDS/TCS and taxes paid in compliance to notice of demand issued u/s.156 of the Act. 2 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the findings of A.O. that the delay in issuing refund was on account of non-furnishing of proof of tax payment by the assessee. 2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) [280 ITR 643 (SC)] without considering the fact that the said decision pertains to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in the lower appellate order. The third and last argument is that the CIT(A) has wrongly ordered interest on interest to be paid to the assessee as per decision of Sandvik Asia Ltd (supra). Relevant case law supporting the above stated pleading is also quoted. The same shall be dealt with in succeeding paragraphs. 4. The assessee strongly supports the CIT(A)'s order under challenge. It clarifies that the same is decided only two issues of interest on self assessment tax u/s. 244A and that on interest on interest. The Revenue's other plea non-submission of proof causing delay is stated to be not arising therefrom. 5. We come to the Revenue's first ground on the issue of interest on self assessment tax of Rs. 27,16,377/- on 13-12-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvance tax/TDS/TCS and taxes paid in compliance to a demand notice u/s. 156 of the Act. We find that this latter plea no-where emanates from the case file. Nor is section 156 demand notice forms part of the case record. The same is accordingly rejected for want of cogent evidence. We come to former plea and find that different high courts have decided the issue against and in favour of the Revenue. Those in assessee's favour holding self assessment tax to be entitled for section 244A interest are (2007) 214 ITR 438 (Madras) CIT vs. Cholamandalum Investment and Finance and Bombay High Court in Stock Holding Corporation Vs. CIT in Civil Writ Petition No. 823 of 2000 decided on 17-11-2014 relating to assessment year 1994-95. The Revenue's spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the earlier decision of Sandvik Asia (supra) as under:- "1. Doubting the correctness or otherwise of the decision of this Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643/150 Taxman 591, a bench of two learned Judges has referred the following question of law for our consideration and authoritative pronouncement by order dated 28.08.2012: "The question which arises in this case is, whether interest is payable by the Revenue to the assessee if the aggregate of installments of Advance Tax OF TDS paidexceeds the assessed tax?" 2. In the aforesaid order of reference, this Court has briefly noticed the facts and the discussion in Sandvik Asia Ltd. 's case (supra) wherein, the main issue for consideration and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. 5. Since, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding the amount due to the assessee this Court had thought it fit that the assessee should be properly and adequately compensated and therefore in paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Court while compensating the assessee had directed the Revenue to pay a compensation by way of interest for two periods, namely; for the Assessment Years 1977-78, 1978-79. 1981-82, 1982-83 in a sum of Rs. 40,84,906/- and interest @ 9% from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 and in default, to pay the penal interest @ 15% per annum for the aforesaid period. 6. In our considered view, the aforesaid judgment has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue. The....