TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (12) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional sum of Rs. 15,334 besides the advance income-tax paid was due to be paid. The assessee did not accept this assessment and preferred an appeal which led to reduction in the total income. CIT slashed the total income to Rs. 55,242 which led to a finding that assessee had paid excess tax by way of advance income-tax. The assessee became entitled to a refund of Rs. 5,021 in respect of which a refund voucher was issued on 31st March 1980. The assessee made a claim for grant of interest both u/ss 214 and s. 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The ITO considered the claim of the assessee u/s 214 and found that no refund was allowed to the assessee as a result of the assessment order passed on 30th October 1980. Therefore, there could be no ques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is words "It would be too much to say that any payment could be made at that time in pursuance of a non-existing order of assessment or penalty. In any case, it is such a matter on which possibly more than one opinion could exist and, therefore, such a controversial issue will be outside the scope of s. 154 as held by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram vs. Volcart (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)". The claim of the assessee, therefore, for allowing interest prior to the date of adjustment on assessment was accordingly turned down. 2. The assessee aggrieved by the refusal of the AAC to allow interst prior to the date of assessment is in appeal before us. The revenue is also in cross objection for upholding the claim for interest from the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reliance on two decisions one by Delhi High Court in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. Union of India and Ors. (1981) 130 ITR 928 (Del) and the other by Madras High Court in the case of Rayon Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, Company Circle, Madras (1980) 126 ITR 135 (Mad), According to the counsel for the assessee a perusal of these two judgements will show that in identical circumstances, they held that assessee was entitled to claim interest u/sub-s (2) of s. 214. He also made a submission against the finding of AAC that there could be two possible views on the interpretation of sub-s (2) of s. 214 and, therefore, such an issue was outside the ambit of consideration u/s 154. According to him, the order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 23(3) of the 1922 Act and not a reassessment. The same position will hold good even under the Act of 1961 as the definition in s. 2(4) is identical in text. We have in T.C. Nos. 530 to 532 of 1975, in the case of the Triplicane Urban Cooperative Society Ltd vs. CIT in the judgement dated 17th July, 1979, reported in (1980) 126 ITR 125 (Mad) held that an order passed in pursuance of the appellate order would itself be an order under section 143 of the Act. However, the question as to whether it was a regular assessment falling under section 214(i) and whether the assessee would be entitled to interest on the amount being refunded as a result of the appellate order did not come up for consideration in that case." Therefore, once it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... After introduction of sub-s (2) in s. 214, whatever may be the interpretation that may be placed on the expression regular assessment contained in s. 214, there is no escape from the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to a refund along with interest upto the date of refund. On the basis of these principles brought out by their lordships of Delhi and Madras High Courts it would follow that assessee was entitled to claim interest from the prescribed date to the date of payment of the refund voucher on the provision contained in s. 214, sub-s. (2). It is pertinent to hold that the views of their lordships of Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case are in pari-materia with the view of their lordships of Madras High Court in the case of R....