TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessment year 1998-99. Though the petitioner filed an income-tax return for the very same year, it was not accompanied by an audit report in terms of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, and so much so, the return was treated as an invalid one. However, the Assessing Officer issued exhibit P1 assessment order whereunder the petitioner was granted refund of the entire advance tax paid by it with interest under section 244A of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,25,000. However, the Assessing Officer later found that the delay in completing the proceedings resulting in refund for substantial period was attributable to the assessee and so much so, granting of interest for the full period from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1991, was not justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only. In the circumstances of the case we find it necessary to set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer to enable him to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law. We accordingly set aside the order under section 154 and direct the Assessing Officer to deal with the matter afresh in terms of section 244A(2)." Based on the order of the Tribunal, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax considered the matter and he issued exhibit P11 under section 244A(2) of the Act. It is based on exhibit P11 that the Officer has recomputed the eligible interest to the petitioner and demanded the excess amount paid to it by the Government vide exhibit P13. The petitioner is not challenging either exhibit P4 order issued by the Tribunal or exh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in CIT v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 667 wherein it was held that interest granted under section 244A(1) cannot be withdrawn. Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the order of the Tribunal is only a remand order and the Tribunal directed the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to decide the matter in accordance with the statutory provision, namely, section 244A(2) of the Act, and, accordingly, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly decided the matter vide exhibit P11. He has pointed out that the petitioner has not chosen to contest the order of the Tribunal or the fresh adjudication order issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the first appellate order, namely, exhibit P2, produced by the petitioner, the petitioner is not seen to have raised any contention about the jurisdictional error in issuing exhibit P2. In fact exhibit PI order issued by the Assessing Officer granting interest to the petitioner for the full period without reference to section 244A(2) of the Act which requires mandatory reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax for deciding the period for which the assessee is ineligible for interest is patently a wrong order which is liable to be rectified under section 154 of the Act, which provides for rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the officer rightly invoked the powers ....