IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos. 5444, 5445
& 5446/Mum/2013
Assessment Years: 2002-03,
2003-04 & 2006-07
M/s. Bank of India, Star DCIT 2(1)
House, Plot C-5, G Mumbai
Block, Bandra Kurla
Vs.
Complex, Bandra(E),
Mumbai- 400 051
PAN:AAACB 0472 C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 5398/Mum/2013
Assessment Year: 2003-04
DCIT 2(1) M/s. Bank of India,
Mumbai Star House, Plot C-5, G
Block, Bandra Kurla
Vs.
Complex, Bandra(E),
Mumbai- 400 051
PAN:AAACB 0472 C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh
Revenue by : Shri S.J. Singh
Date of hearing : 10.12.2014
Date of Order : 22.12.2014
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
This aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as
by the Revenue against separate orders passed by the Ld.CIT-4,
Mumbai, of even date 28.05.2013, in relation to the proceedings u/s
ITA Nos. 5444, 5445
2 & 5446/Mum/2013
M/s. Bank of India
Assessment Years: 2002-03,
2003-04 & 2006-07
154. Since common issues are involved in all the appeals, therefore, for
the sake of convenience, the same were heard together and are being
disposed of by way of this consolidated order. The main issue involved
in all the appeals is non granting of interest u/s 244A on the self
assessment tax paid and secondly, imposes working of interest u/s 244
A, while granting refund to the assessee. For the sake of convenience
cross appeals for the A.Y. 2003-04 is taken up first.
2. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged non granting of
interest on self assessment tax. The assessee is a nationalized bank and
in this year, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3), vide order dated
29.03.2005, whereby income was assessed at Rs.15,09,60,13,850/-. The
said order was subject matter of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). After
giving effect to the order of CIT(A) and while granting refund, the
assessing officer did not grant interest u/s 244A on the self assessment
tax paid by the assessee. Aggrieved by that, assessee filed a petition for
rectification u/s 154 to grant interest. However, the assessing officer did
not accept the assessee's contention that interest on self assessment tax
is not payable within section 244A. The Ld.CIT(A) however, directed the
AO to look into the matter and decide the issue on merits.
3. Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the issue of grant of
interest on self assessment tax now stands covered by the decision of
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Stock Holdings India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CIT, vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 in Writ Petition No.
823 of 2000. Therefore, this issue should be decided in the light of the
said decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
ITA Nos. 5444, 5445
3 & 5446/Mum/2013
M/s. Bank of India
Assessment Years: 2002-03,
2003-04 & 2006-07
4. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the assessee should
have filed appeal against regular assessment order and not u/s 154 as
the issue is beyond the scope of section 154.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material
on record. So far as the contention of the Ld. DR that the issue of
interest on self assessment cannot be raised in proceedings u/s 154,
cannot be accepted, because it was only after giving effect to the
Ld.CIT(A) order and while granting refund, the AO has not granted the
interest on self assessment tax. The only course left before the assessee
was to file a petition u/s 154. Thus the claim of interest of self
assessment tax is maintainable in the proceedings u/s 154. So far as the
issue, whether interest should be granted on the amount of self
assessment tax paid is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Stock Holdings Corporation of India
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that tax paid on self
assessment would fall within the ambit of section 244A(i)(b). Accordingly
the AO is directed to grant interest u/s 244A on the self assessment tax.
Thus ground no. 1 as raised by the assessee is treated as allowed.
6. In Ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged the working of
interest and the manner in which refund has been adjusted by the
assessing officer as not correct. Ld counsel submitted that the assessing
officer while granting interest on refund and while making the
adjustment, of refund, has made the entire adjustment on account of
interest and not against the amount of tax. When the AO did not pay
the full amount of refund but a part of refund then he was liable to
calculate interest on the balance amount of outstanding demand
ITA Nos. 5444, 5445
4 & 5446/Mum/2013
M/s. Bank of India
Assessment Years: 2002-03,
2003-04 & 2006-07
consisting of tax and interest. He also submitted working of the refund
and the interest allowed by the AO and state that same is not in
accordance with the law. The Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly held that assessee
has requested for interest on interest. In support of his contention, he
strongly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case
of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT reported in (2014) 361
ITR 646.
7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the working of the AO as
well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
8. After considering the submissions made by the parties and also the
working given by the AO, we are of the opinion that the assessing
officer should examine the working of refund and interest afresh,
keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT (2014) 361 ITR
646. The assessee can submit its own working, which can be examined
by the AO in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as their
Lordships after examining the relevant provision of section 244A and
effect of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.
HEG 324 ITR 331, have laid down the principle as to how the part
payment of refund and the interest on the balance amount is to be
calculated. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is treated as partly
allowed for statistical purpose.
9. In the revenue's appeal, ground raised is similar to ground no. 1 of
the assessee's appeal, therefore, in view of the finding giving therein,
the department ground is treated as dismissed.
ITA Nos. 5444, 5445
5 & 5446/Mum/2013
M/s. Bank of India
Assessment Years: 2002-03,
2003-04 & 2006-07
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed
for statistical purpose and the Revenue is dismissed.
Appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2006-07,
11. In these appeals, only one issue is raised which is similar to ground
no. 2, raised by the assessee in the appeal for A.Y. 2003-04. Thus, in
view of the finding given therein, the said issue is also set aside to the
file of the AO to examine the working of interest and refund and decide
the issue in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of
India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly the
grounds raised by the assessee in both the years are treated as partly
allowed for statistical purpose.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed
for statistical purpose and the Revenue is dismissed
Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day
December, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.K. BILLAIYA) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 22.12.2014
*Srivastava
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR "B" Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
|
