2013 (7) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide his order dated 30-06-2008 for assessment year (AY) 2002-03. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of Assessing Officer (AO) rectifying the mistake vide order passed u/s. 251/154/154/154/251/143(3) of the Act dated 22-04-2008 by which nterest on unpaid interest already granted to him. By this, the assessee has raised following two grounds:- "1. That, since there was no apparent mistake in the order passed u/s. 251/154/154/154/251/143(3) dt. 22.4.08, the Ld. AO erred in rectifying the said order in terms of Sec. 1154 of the I.T. Act and passing a revised order dt. 30.6.08 in which he wrongly withdrew i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund by adjustment on 26.09.06 there was no excess amount of TDS & Advance-tax, the question of granting interest u/s. 244A(1) after that date does not arise. After adjusting the excess amount of refund over TDS & Advance-tax i.e. 'A' from the interest due to the assessee i.e., 'B', there will be net refund of Rs. 6,50,00,908/-/" 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who without a speaking order adjudicated the issue vide para-5 and 5.1 of his order, which reads as under:- "5. Ground No.1 and 2 are general in nature and hence does not require any adjudication. Ground No.3 and 4 are interrelated. The assessee has submitted that:- 'i) the AO has erred in holding that grant of interest on unpaid inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) as under:- "There is no question of the delay being 'justifiable" and even if the Revenue taken an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is "justifiable" or "not wrongful". There is no exception to the principle for an allegedly "justifiable" withholding. When the claims of the authority are found to be unsustainable or erroneous by the courts it follows that the authority has acted wrongfully in the sense of not in accordance with law and compensation to the party deprived must follow." And finally Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the interest by holding as under:- "Held accordingly, revising the decision of the High Court,....