TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which was rectified under section 154 to ₹ 68,94,18,830/-. There was an appeal to the CIT(A), who gave certain reliefs to the assessee in his order dated 29.03.2006. The Assessing Officer passed an order on 28.06.2006 to give effect to the order of the CIT(A). In this order, after giving effect to the reliefs allowed by the CIT(A), the total income was determined at a negative figure (loss) of ₹ 60,59,20,208/-. On the same day, i.e. 28.06.2006, the tax refundable to the assessee was calculated in the income tax computation form in ITNS-150, a copy of which has been filed before us. The total tax refundable to the assessee came to ₹ 32,06,80,460/-. The Assessing Officer also calculated the interest payable to the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as because the delay in granting the refund was attributable to the assessee. The CIT(A) further noted that in the return of income the assessee did not claim that the retention monies cannot be assessed to tax but such a claim was put forth only by letter dated 31.12.2004. According to the CIT(A), the assessee's claim was an after-thought, as such a claim had not been put forth in the return of income. In this view of the matter, the CIT(A) attributed the delay in granting the refund to the assessee and upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 154 read with section 250 of the Act. 4. The assessee is in further appeal before us to contend that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion arises as to the period to be excluded, the same shall be decided by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. In the case before us, the first question to be examined is what are the proceedings which resulted in the refund. On this there appears to be not much difficulty since the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) as well as the Administrative CIT are all agreed that the refund has arisen as a result of the order of the CIT(A). In other words, the refund has undisputedly arisen as a result of the appellate proceedings. The second question which is to be examined is whether it can be said that the assessee delayed the appellate proceedings. There is no evidence to show that the appeal proceedings ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o ground to say that the assessee delayed the appellate proceedings because as observed by the Madras High Court in the case of Pope The King Match Factory vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 495 (Mad), filing an appeal and questioning the assessment by pursuing the remedies provided by law are only constitutional means of challenging the liability of the assessee to pay tax and that the assessee is at liberty to strain every nerve to get the liability to pay tax vacated. It is therefore not possible to view the mere act of filing an appeal to the CIT(A) as delaying the appellate proceedings. It was required of the Assessing Officer to further show that the final decision or the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A), which resulted in the refund, was dela....