TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of provisions made in earlier years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 2nd June, 2014 deleted the addition of Rs. 4,90,88,000/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 14A. The CIT(A) also reduced the addition on account of interest written back on commencing capital of National Airport Authority by a sum of Rs. 61.43 crore on the ground that the interest to that extent claimed by the assessee in earlier years was disallowed by the AO/assessee itself. The CIT(A) thus, confirmed the addition of Rs. 15,64,06,238/- on account of interest on income tax refund and interest of Rs. 106.18 crore no longer payable by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 15,64,06,238....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., & 234D and Rs. 130.70 Crores interest on excess tax paid by it. The assessee has added Rs. 130,70,02,857/- as its income in its return of Income as is evident from financials (computation at PB. Pg. 2). The amount of Rs. 15,64,06,238/- received was not added as its income as it was the amount of interest refunded by the department which was paid by the assessee in earlier years on account of interest charged under Section 234B/234A, Thus, it was not income of the assessee but refund of interest paid by it to the Department. 7. It was submitted that the assessee under the law was not entitled to claim deduction of such interest and has also never claimed these interests charged u/s 234A/B/C/D in their respective assessment years which is clearly evident from the computation of income for assessment year 2007-08 at PB. Pg. 19 and assessment year 2004-05 at PB. Pg. 31 and the same being not an income chargeable to tax, cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no denying the fact that whenever the department charged these interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D, same were getting reflected in the P&L A/c of the assessee but being added ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod from 1st June 1986 to 31st March, 1999. Out of this interest debited in the profit and loss account, a sum of Rs. 61.43 crore was disallowed by the AO/assessee itself while completing assessment of the relevant assessment years. The balance amount of Rs. 106.18 crore has been offered by the assessee in the return for the A.Y. 2011-12 as is evident from computation of income placed at PB. Pg. 33. It was further submitted that this amount has been accepted and assessed by the AO for the A.Y. 2011-12 under Section 143(3) as is evident from the order placed at PB. Pg. 34 to 47. The assessee having offered this amount for taxation in the A.Y. 2011-12, there was no reason for the AO to tax the same again in A.Y. 2010-11. 13. The Ld. DR submitted that this interest ceased to be a liability during the year under consideration and as such the same has to be taxed in this year only. He further submitted that AO was justified in bringing this amount to tax in this year and it does not make any difference if the assessee has offered this amount in subsequent year and the same has been accepted and assessed by the AO also. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the earlier year cannot be added back. However, in the absence of evidences for the balance amount, he sustained the addition of Rs. 106.18 crore in the AY 2010- 11. 17. Ongoing through the assessment order for the A.Y. 2011-12 we however note that the assessee has included the balance amount of Rs. 106.18 crore in the assessment year 2011-12 and the same has been assessed also. The AO in that order had also discussed this issue in the assessment order placed at PB. Pg. 34 to 47. On going through this order for A.Y. 2011-12, we note that the assessee made a request to the AO that it has included a sum of Rs. 106.18 crore as its income in this assessment year 2011-12 which has been also taxed in the preceding assessment year 2010-11 and accordingly, the income for the assessment year 2011-12 be reduced by this amount of Rs. 106.18 crore as the same tentamounts to double taxation. The AO however has rejected this contention of the assessee as is evident form the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 106.18 crore has been taxed twice i.e. in Assessment year under consideration 2010-11 and assessment year 2011-12. We are of the view that this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different ; but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no consequence to the Department ; and one should have thought that the Department would not fritter away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging from the references that come up to us every now and then, the Department appears to delight in raising points of this character which do not affect the taxability of the assessee or the tax that the Department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other." 31. In this court, in its decision dated May 6, 2008 in I. T. R. No. 229 of 1988 entitled CIT v. Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. had quoted the aforesaid passage and thereafter remarked that ....