RELIANCE INFR5ASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI v. DDIT(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7509/MUM/2010 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 750919914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCR7446Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7509/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant RELIANCE INFR5ASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DDIT(2)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 02-11-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 7509/MUM/2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 M/S RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX RELIANCE ENERGY CENTRE VS. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1) SANTACRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 055. PAN AACCR 7446Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI JITENDRA SANGHAVI. RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. SE NTHIL KUMAR. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-11 MUMBAI DATED 06-09-2010 ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS : 1. A) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TDS OFFICER ON NON GRANTING OF INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE REFUND OF TAX PAID IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER U/S 201 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1 961. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE INTEREST U/S 244A(1 )(B) IS ALLOWABLE AND SHOULD BE GRANTED ON THE REFUND OF TAX PAID IN PURS UANCE OF ORDER U/S 201 OF THE ACT. 2 B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TDS OFFICER RELYING ON THE CBDT CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR NON-GRANT OF INTEREST U/S 244A. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE CBDT CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE TDS OF FICER TO GRANT INTEREST U/S 244A ON THE TAX PAID PURSUANT TO ORDER U/S 201 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT 16 SOT 481 (MUM TR IB). 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT) VS. M/S R ELIANCE INFOCOMM LTD. ITA NOS. 6100 TO 6110/M/2008. 3. ADIT(IT)-2(1) VS. M/S RELIANCE INFOCOMM LTD. ITA NO. 5581/M/2008 & 5585/M/2008. 4. DDIT(IT) VS. STAR CRUISES (INDIA) TRAVEL SERVICE S PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO. CRUISES (INDIA) TRAVEL SERVICES PRIVATE LIM ITED. ITA NOS. 6498 & 6500/M/06 C.O.OS. 10 & 12/MUM/09. 5. ITO VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SC) 252 ITR 772 (SC). 2. DR. S. SENTHIL KUMAR LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS COVERED FOR THE REASON T HAT THE ORDER IN THE CASE TATA CHEMICALS LTD. APPLIES ONLY TO CASES WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE CONSEQUENT TO ANY ORDER PASSED BY AN AUTHORITY U/S 195(2) OR U/S 201. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTU DEDUCTED TAX ES AT SOURCE AND THEREAFTER CLAIMS A REFUND IT SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO INTER EST U/S 244A. 3 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERAT ION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE RS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 4. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HIRED M/S JARDINE FLEM MING AS A LEAD MANAGERS FOR THE GDR ISSUE AND THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS MAD E TO M/S JARDINE FLEMMING AS WELL AS THEIR ASSOCIATES. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE D ATED 19-3-1998 U/S 195 OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THEY HAVE NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S JARDINE FLEMMING INT ERNATIONAL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE AO HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO PAY US $ 26 76 750/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY PARTLY ALLOWED THE SAME. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 4340 AND 4341/MUM/2000 ORDER DATED 4 TH APRIL 2007 SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE AO. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7-3-2008 AND DETERMINED A REFUND. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST U/S 244A. THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY REJECTED THE CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE TDS WAS VOLUNTARILY DEPOSITED BY IT OR UNDER PROTEST U/S 195(2) AND HE NCE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INTEREST U/S 244A. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 5. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT T HE PAYMENT OF TDS WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND IN PURSUANCE TO AN ORDER PASSED U/S 1 95 BY THE AO. THE REFUND ALSO WAS DUE IN PURSUANCE TO AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 7-3-2008. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ALSO OF OPINION THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT AND THE ORDERS OF THE 4 TRIBUNAL (AS MENTIONED IN PARA 2 ABOVE). RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO PAY INTEREST U/S 244A. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO)) (J. SUDHAK AR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 28 TH JANUARY 2011. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR D-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRA R ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.