TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y lending business and trading in shares and securities, during the F.Yrs relevant to A.Yrs 1990-91 to 1995-96. There was a search and seizure operation in his case on 4.9.1994 and a declaration was made u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the assessee opted to pay taxes out of the proceeds from the sale of seized shares and securities. Consequently, the assessee filed an application before the Settlement Commission which passed an order on 02.12.1999 determining the unaccounted income of the assessee at Rs. 1,68,09,306/-. The A.O. gave effect to the order of the Settlement Commission on 11.2.2000 determining the tax payable at Rs. 1,67,77,651/-. The assessee paid the taxes amounting to Rs. 1,60,66,947/- on 8.3.2002. By an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs, there was no demand outstanding pertaining to any A.Y. and no amount was due as per return filed. In view of this categorical finding of CIT(A) that the amount of Rs. 42 lakhs paid by assessee need to be given credit for AY 1995-96, the Tribunal held that this amount paid by assessee in advance, has to be treated as advance tax for A.Y. 1995-96. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the order of CIT(A) and directed the AO to give credit for the amount paid and also interest u/s 234A of the Act. The order of Tribunal dt. 27.4.2007 was confined to AY 1995-96 and there was no discussion or whisper in respect of other A.Ys. Pursuant thereto, the AO passed an order u/s 154 of the Act rectifying the orders for AYs 1991-92 to 1994-95 against which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irections of Hon'ble ITAT by not giving double credit and by not waiving interest levied u/s 234A, B and C of the Act. Consequent to the order of CIT(A), the AO passed consequential order dt. 22.6.2010 against charging interest u/s 220(2) of the Act and against this order assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same by holding that the order passed charging interest u/s 220(2) of the Act is not an appealable order u/s 234A of the Act. Against this order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid little more than the entire tax demand in the year 2002 itself and the interest u/s 220(2) for the years before the Settlement Commission was waive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the case of an assessee wherein while giving effect to the order of the ACIT in the quantum appeal, the interest on refund was not allowed u/s 244 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the order passed by the ITO giving effect to the decision of appellate authority is as much an assessment order as the one passed by him by way of regular assessment u/s 143 of the Act. It was also held that in the absence of specific right of appeal conferred by S.246, no appeal lies to the appellate authority against refusal to grant interest, but where there is total denial of liability to pay interest, the order is liable to be challenged in an appeal although there can be no appeal if dispute is only regarding the quantum of interest pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right of appeal against the order on the ground that interest was inadequately granted. The Tribunal granted certain reliefs to the assessee and in giving effect to the Tribunal's order, the Income tax Officer passed a modification order granting refund to the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the modification order and claimed that the Income tax Officer was in error in not granting interest on refund under section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that no appeal lay against an order giving effect to the appellate order of the Tribunal and that, in any event, no right of appeal was provided against the Income tax Officer's omission to grant refund u/s 244. ....