2026 (2) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the appeal that was filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.06.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'). 7. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent had initially filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 129,36,64,391/- and claimed refund of Rs. 15,38,86,689/-. 8. During the period interregnum, the respondent had submitted an application for a composite scheme of arrangement between it, its subsidiary companies, holding company which came to be approved under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide order dated 30.10.2013 passed by this Court. Accordingly system integration undertaking came to be merged with the respondent company w.e.f. 01.11.2013 with the appointed date, being 01.01.2013. 9. Consequent to the merger and the restructuring which had taken place, the respondent filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2016 and declared a loss of Rs. 130,25,67,160/- and claimed additional TDS credit/refund of Rs. 10,24,74,419/- making the total refund of the TDS to Rs. 25,63,61,108/-. 10. It is the respondent's assertion that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts order dated 15.09.2023. 17. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned SSC for the appellant, submitted that the respondent-assessee had filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014 and the revised return on 31.03.2016 and thereafter moved rectification application belatedly, i.e. on 25.01.2018, which was expeditiously disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 26.04.2018. 18. Having apprised the Court about the relevant dates, he argued that having filed revised return on 31.03.2016, the respondent-assessee waited for about 2 years (22 months), and the same was allowed by the Assessing Officer without any delay vide its order dated 26.04.2018. He argued that in the present facts, the interest under Section 244A of the Act of 1961 is not payable to the respondent. He added that the CIT(A), so also the Tribunal, have erred on facts and in law inasmuch as the delay in getting the refund is majorly attributable to the respondent-assessee. 19. Learned SSC for the appellant invited Court's attention towards sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act of 1961 and submitted that in the event, when the delay in processing of the refund is due to the fault of the assessee, it is not entitled f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 244 is to be decided by the 'Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner' or 'Principal Commissioner or Commissioner' and not by the Assessing Officer. He therefore argued that if any period was to be excluded, the same could be excluded by the authority mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 244 and not by the Assessing Officer himself. 26. Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: i. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax; reported in [2016] 72 taxmann.com 148 (Gujarat). ii. Chetan N. Shah v. M.K. Moghe, Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mumbai; reported in [2015] 53 taxmann.com 18 (Bombay). 27. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant, in rejoinder submitted that even if the first part of delay (i.e. from 30.11.2014 to 31.03.2016) is considered, it is to be seen that this Court approved the scheme of arrangement on 30.10.2013 but the respondent-assessee revised its return as late as on 31.03.2016 and did nothing besides writing one letter to CPC dated 04.04.2016. 28. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court. It is after such recasting of the accounts that the respondent-company filed its revised return on 31.03.2016. 32. It is not in dispute that while the revised return was filed by the respondent-company on 31.03.2016 claiming a refund of Rs. 25,63,61,108/- the TDS could not be claimed because of the technical glitch or system error about which the respondent-assessee had not only informed the Assessing Officer but had also lodged a complaint before the CPC (ticket number 4039829) by way of communications dated 06.04.2016 and 04.04.2016 respectively. 33. Maybe the Assessing Officer processed the rectification application within a reasonable time and has allowed the same vide order dated 26.04.2018 but while doing so, though he allowed the refund of the TDS so claimed by the respondent but did not pay the applicable interest thereupon as per Section 244A of the Act of 1961. 34. It will not be out of place to reproduce sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act of 1961 as the interpretation thereof is the bone of contention before the rival parties. "244A.... (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee or....