Sh. Raj Palhadha ( Decd), Amritsar. v. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 645/ASR/2013 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 64520914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ABUPP5082E
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 645/ASR/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Raj Palhadha ( Decd), Amritsar.
Respondent The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 15-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 09-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 09-04-2014
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 01-11-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.645 & 646(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1998-99 & 1999-2000 PAN :ABUPP5082E SHRI RAJ PAL CHADHA (DECD.) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER THROUGH SH. VIJAY KUMAR CHADHA WARD 5(3) AMRITSA R. L/R-23 GALI NO.1 MODEL TOWN AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.SUDERSHAN KAPOOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL DR DATE OF HEARING: 09/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15/04/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE CONSOLIDATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AMRITSAR DATED 07.10.2013 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 1999-2000. SINCE THE FACTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 2 CONVENIENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.645(ASR)/2013: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE REFUND OF RS. 11 35 608/- GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENCE OF ITAT ORDE R DATED 12.02.2008. 2. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND LAW AND THE INTERST U/S 244A HAS BEEN WRONGLY REFUSED. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SUBMISSIONS MADE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE CASE LAW R ELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED A ND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE INTEREST ON REFUND H AS BEEN WRONGLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN ITA NO.646(ASR)/2013 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE REFUND OF RS. 57 582/- GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENCE OF ITAT ORDE R DATED 15.02.2008. 2. THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE AGAINST FACTS AND LAW AND THE INTEREST U/S 244A HAS BEEN WRONGLY REFUSED. 3. THAT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SUBMISSIONS MADE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE CASE LAW R ELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED A ND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE INTEREST ON REFUND H AS BEEN WRONGLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 3 3. FIRST OF ALL WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.645(ASR)/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AN D OUR ORDER HEREIN BELOW SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ITA NO.646 (ASR)/2013 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN ITA NO.645(ASR)/2013 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RE TURN THROUGH SMT. KAMLA RANI ON 14.02.2003 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.44 24 549 /- AND PAID TAX OF RS.11 54 983/- BY WAY OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 10. 02.2003. THE A.O. HAS HELD THE ABOVE INCOME IN THE HAND OF ONE FIRM M/S. BABA NAGA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS INSTEAD OF THE ASSESSEE SH.RAJPAL CH ADHA (DECD.). ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O. WHEREAS THE CIT(A) HAD REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. THIS ORDER OF ITAT BECAME FINAL AND THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED OF RS.11 54 983/- PAID IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E AO HAD GRANTED REFUND OF RS.11 35 608/- ONLY AND HAD NOT ALLOWED THE INTE REST U/S 244(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED NOW SUCH INTEREST U/S 244(A). 5. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 5 & 6 OF THE ORDER DISM ISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND V ARIOUS CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD FOR A.Y. 1998 -99 & 2999-2000. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF REFU ND U/S 244(A)(A) ON INTEREST ON REFUND OF SELF ASSESSMENT AX PAID BY ASSESSEE PERTAINING ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 4 TO REFUND ON TDS AMOUNT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE O F CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. 324 ITR 331 (SC) WHEREAS THE PRESENT CASE PE RTAINS TO APPLICABILITY OF 244A(1)(B) OR NOT. THUS THE ABOVE CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ABOVE S ELF ASSESSMENT AX SUOMOTO AND HAS MADE A CLAIM THAT ALLEGED INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN HIS HAND WHEREAS IT HAD BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HAND S OF FIRM AND THAT INCOME HAS BECOME FINAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES T HE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT COVERED EVEN U/S 244(A)(1)(B) AS THERE IS NO DELAY OR DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AS IN MY OPINION 244(A)(1)(B) IS APPLICABLE ON PAYMENT OF THOSE TAXE S WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID AS PER NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ISSUED U/S 156 AS PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 244(A)(1)(B). HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE SITUATION WHICH WAS SLIGHTLY DIFF ERENT FROM THE PRESENT FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUTLEJ INDUSTR IES LTD. (DELHI) 325 ITR 331 ON (P.P.339) HONBLE HIGH COURT STATED WH ERE AN ASSESSEE OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION PAYS SELF-ASSESSMENT WHILST STAKING A CLAIM IN THE RETURN WHICH CLAIM IS ACCEPTED RESULTING IN R EFUND OF SELF ASSESSMENT AX THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE EQUALLY ENTIT LED TO INTEREST THEREON. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ANALYSIS OF ABOVE JUD GMENT THAT WHERE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AND ASSESSEE BECO MES ENTITLED FOR REFUND OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX THE ASSESSEE WOULD B E ENTITLED TO INTEREST THEREON WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND HAS BEEN PROVED OTHERWISE. IN FAC T ASSESSEES CLAIM IS COVERED U/S 244(A)(2) PERTAINING TO NON G RANTING OF INTEREST ON REFUND FOR DELAY FOR REASONS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHETHER WHOLLY OR IN PART. THUS AO HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED T HE ISSUE AND REJECTED GRANT OF INTEREST ON REFUND DUE. HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN S.L.P. NO.11406 OF 2008 IN THEIR JUDGMENT DATED 18 .09.2013 HAS CLARIFIED IN A LARGER BENCH DECISION THAT: FURTHER IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE LEGI SLATURE BY THE ACT NO. 4 OF 1988 ( W.E.F. 01.04.1989) HAS INSERTED SEC TION 244A TO THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDS UNDER VARIOU S CONTINGENCIES. WE CLARIFY THAT IT IS ONLY THAT INTEREST PROVIDED F OR UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE REVENU E AND NO OTHER INTEREST ON SUCH STATUTORY INTEREST. ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 5 THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T WHILE CLARIFYING DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF TH E CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS. CIT AND OTHER (2006) 2 SCC 508. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON ALL RE FUNDS BUT ONLY AS PROVIDED IN THE LAW. IN THE PRESENT CASE REFUND WAS NEVER WRONGFULLY RETAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS PAID BACK TO THE ASSESSEE AS SOON AS SAME BECOME FINAL AND PAYABLE AS PER DECIS ION OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE APPE AL IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THIS DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO CLARIF IES THAT NO INTEREST ON INTEREST IS TO BE GRANTED WHILE CL ARIFYING THIS ISSUE WHICH APPEARS TO BE COMING OUT FROM DECISION OF SAN DVIK ASIA PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST ON INTEREST IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SIMILAR CLAIMS OF ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 1999-2000 ARE ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. THE RETURN IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS FILED FOR RS.40 24 5 49/- VOLUNTARILY AND TAX OF RS.11 54 983/- WAS PAID BY WAY OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME OF RS.38 49 950/- INCLUDED IN THE R ETURN BELONGING TO ONE FIRM M/S. BABA NAGA RICE & GENERAL MILLS AND THER EFORE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS . THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID INCOME IN THE CASE OF M/S. BABA NAGA RICE & GENERAL MILLS AND MADE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANT IVE BASIS. THE ITAT REVERSED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAID INCOME WAS FINALLY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM M/S. BABA NAGA RI CE & GENERAL MILLS AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH. RAJ PAL CHADHA ( DECD.) WAS ANNULLED. ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 6 NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED REFUND OF RS.11 54 983 /- PAID IN THE CASE OF SH. RAJ PAL CHADHA (DECD.) WHICH WAS GRANTED BUT N O INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED. THE INTEREST CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: I) INTEREST @ 2/3% FROM 10.02.2003 TO 08.09.2003 (7 M) 52 995 ON RS.11 35 608/-. II) INTEREST @ % FROM 09.09.2003 TO 17.02.2009 (65 M) ON RS.11 35 608/- 3 68 726 4 22 721 6.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW: I) CIT VS. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. (2002) 254 ITR 641 ( MAD) II) CIT VS. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. (2007) 294 ITR 438 (MAD). III) CIT VS. SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD. (2010) 325 ITR 331 (DELHI) IV) CIT & ANOTHER VS. VIJAYA BANK (2011) 338 ITR 489 (K ARN.) V) CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. (2009) 310 ITR 341 (MP) VI) CIT VS. H.E.G. LTD. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC). 6.2. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON HEREINABO VE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST WHICH IS PAID UNDER SECTION 1 40-A ON SELF-ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS STATUTORY LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST ON SUCH REFUND WHICH IS WRONGFULLY DETAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 7 CASE WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO REFUND INTEREST AS APPL ICABLE AS PER LAW ON THE REFUND AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO .646(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEA L ARE IDENTICAL TO FACTS IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.645(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A .Y. 1998-99 DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDINGLY OUR FINDINGS GIVEN H EREINABOVE IN ITA NO. 645(ASR)/2013 ARE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN ITA N O. 646(ASR)/2013. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS IN ITA NO. 646(ASR)/20 13 ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 645 & 646(ASR)/2013 FOR ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15TH APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15TH APRIL 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.RAJ PAL (DECD.) THROUGH SH. VIJAY KUMAR AMRITSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD-5(3) AMRITSAR. 3. THE CIT(A) AMRITSAR. 4. THE CIT AMRITSAR. 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR