AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bad in law and therefore be quashed. 2. Ground No. 2 2.1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the learned AO withdrawing interest correctly allowed to the Appellant as per the provisions of section 244A of the ITA and holding that the proceedings resulting in refund were delayed for the reasons attributable to the Appellant. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO passed order dated 17-07-2019 ignoring the provisions of section 244A(2) of the ITA. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to delete the demand of Rs. 12,47,18,984/- and restore the interest granted u/s 244A vide order dated 16-05-2016. 3. Ground No.3 3.1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order dated 17-07-2019 passed by the learned AO in the name of non-existent entity i.e. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciated that order passed in the name of non-existent entity is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 3. On merits, the short issue that w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... included interest us 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 21,25,91,553/-. 4.5. The working of interest granted us 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the above refund being Rs. 21,25,91,553/- is seen to have been worked out from 1st April of 2007. 5. From the facts discussed in the preceding paras, it is evident that the interest us 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, computed on the refund is engendered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT on the additional ground raised by the assessee before it. 6. Since the additional ground raised by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT with regard to its own suo motto disallowance made us 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has resulted in substantial portion of refund, the corresponding interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to this refund is attributable to the delay cause caused due to the assessee's raising additional ground of appeal in respect of its suo motto disallowance us 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. 7. Therefore, the amount of interest us 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the refund arising on the relief from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....co-ordinate bench decision in the case of DBS Bank Ltd vs DDIT [(2016) 157 ITD 476 (Mum)] wherein, speaking through one of us (i.e. the Vice President) the co-ordinate bench has observed as follows:- 6. While dealing with rectification of mistakes under s. 154, it is necessary to bear in mind inherently limited scope of this provision. This aspect of the matter has been beautifully explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the landmark case of ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), as follows: "....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by Chief CIT or CIT whose decision thereon shall be final". In this light, when we revert to the facts of this case, we find that there is nothing more the fact of delayed claim under s. 10(23G) which has been put against the assessee to deny the interest under s. 244A, for the period of the beginning of the relevant assessment year till the date of making the claim by way of a letter, but then it is not the delay in claim but the delay in "the proceedings resulting in refund" which are crucial factor in declining in the interest under s. 244A. There is nothing on record to suggest that the proceedings leading to the refund, i.e., assessment proceedings, are "delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee". That is not even the case of the AO. Even assuming that the making of a delayed claim, by itself, can be reason enough for denial of interest under s. 244A, there is nothing on record to even suggest that the delay in making of the claim was attributed to the assessee. The exemption under s. 10(23G) is dependent on the approv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under s. 244A for the period of 1st April, 2002 to 20th Jan., 2005, was not a mistake apparent on record. In view of the above discussions, and for more reasons than one, the AO was in error in passing the impugned order under s. 154 on this aspect of the matter as well. 10. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the AO was clearly in error in passing the impugned order under s. 154. Learned CIT(A), therefore, ought to have cancelled the impugned order passed by the AO. We, therefore, reverse the action of the CIT(A) and quash the impugned order under s. 154. As the said order stands cancelled, all other issues raised by the assessee are rendered academic and do not call for any adjudication by us at this stage. 8. Section 244A(2) categorically provides that, "if the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner whose decision will be final".....