TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in returning a finding that the issue raised is not debatable? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in upholding the finding of CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244 (1A) of the Income Tax Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to receive interest u/s 214 of the Income Tax Act from the prescribed date to the actual date on which refund was ordered?" 2. The assessee had made payment of advance income tax under Section 210 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") when the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for interest from the date of payment of the advance upto the date of assessment, whereas the case of the revenue in the cross-objections was against the admission of the claim of the assessee for interest from the date of assessment upto the date of refund made. The Tribunal vide its order dated 24.3.1983 accepted the appeal filed by the assessee and the cross-objections filed by the revenue were dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record. 6. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that question No.1 has not been pressed by the counsel for the revenue. As regards question No.2, it has been pointed out that the said question has to be answered in favour of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or payment of compensation, compensation for delay is required to be paid as the Act itself recognizes in principle the liability of the Department to pay interest when excess tax was retained and the same principle should be extended to cases where interest was retained." 7. The said judgement has also been followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. P.K. Gupta, Commissioner of Income-Tax and others (2006) 284 ITR 85 (Bom). Following the above judgements, question No.2 is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. We also find that question No.3 as raised by the revenue has to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgemen....