VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI

KANT, AM the assessee for assessment y rder dated 16.07.2024 passe come-tax (Appeals) – National F ort ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’]. The cross venue for assessment year 2011
d 16.07.2024 passed by the ispute is involved in these ap together and disposed off b r convenience and avoid repetiti up the appeal of the assessee grounds raised by the assessee additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1
ejecting the ground of the Appellant of n rest u/s. 244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate o which time limit to pass the Order Giving E ble Income-Tax Appellant Tribunal ('ITAT') e
Act to the date of grant of refund allegi not provided documentary proof vis-à-vis se he AO and Principal CIT.
e called for the records from AO to verify er of ITAT by the AO instead of summarily ppellant.
brought forward business losses and u acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
year 2006-07 is ed by the Ld.
Faceless Appeal s appeals of the -12 are directed
Ld. CIT(A). A peals, therefore by way of this ion of facts.
for assessment are reproduced
1A):

non-grant of of 3 percent,
Effect to the expired u/s.
ing that the ervice of the the date of rejecting the unabsorbed

TAX
38. GROS
39. REBA
40. SURC
41. EDUC
Via t directing to grant correct amount of set of ness losses and unabsorbed depreciat instead of set off granted of Rs. 12,53,12,905
ng provided.
ppreciate that merely because the rectification ch 2011 was not disposed off by the AO ct set off of correct amount of brought forwa nabsorbed depreciation as they are conseq ailable as per provisions of section 72 read t f opportunity of virtual hearing lleging non-receipt of any reply from the A he opportunity for video conferencing gran the responses filed by the Appellant s facts of the case are that the engaged in broadcasting of tele ludes marketing of advertising a ution of the channels. The facts ute before us are that the As ng effect (OGE) to the order dat essment year consideration on ed refund to be granted to t mprising of interest u/s 244A to Rs 7,32,32,565/- and Rs.
e OGE dated 30/09/2022 is CALCULATIONS
SS TAX
81,2
ATE
CHARGE
8,
CATION CESS
1, acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
Rs.
5 ignoring the n application can't be the ard business quential and with section Appellant in nted without seeking the e assessee is a evision channels airtime on these s of the case for ssessing Officer ted 03/09/2021
n 30/09/2022 , the assessee at of the Income-
1,38,22,830/-.
reproduced as 26,751
0
12,675
78,789

TAXE

DIVID
DETA
56. ADDI
INTER
DISTR

FINA

Via

CREDIT 115JAA/115JD
IEF U/S 89(1) U/S 90 / U/S TAX
91,
REST U/S 234A
AY PERIOD
REST U/S 234B
16,4
REST U/S 234C
SS DEMAND
1,08,
ES PAYMENT DETAILS
/TCS
57,
ANCE TAX
F ASSESSMENT TAX
11,
ULAR ASSESSMENT TAX
14,79,
UNT ALREADY REFUNDED
AL TAX PAID
9,95,2
DEND DISTRIBUTION TAX
AILS
ITIONAL INCOME TAX AND REST PAYABLE ON RIBUTED PROFITS
ITIONAL INCOME TAX AND REST PAID
0

AL DETAILS

AL TAX AND INTEREST
ABLE
-8,87,14,988

REST U/S 244A
-7,32,32,565

REST MADE U/S 244A
OVERED
-1,38,22,830

acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
61. DELA
TO A 62. INTER

DEMA

AY PERIOD ATTRIBUTABLE
SSESSEE

REST U/S 234D
0
REST U/S 220
0
AND /REFUND

AMOUNT PAYABLE /
UNDABLE
-14,81,24,720

order giving effect dated 30
sessee on 14.10.2022 via e-m n 153(5) of the Act, the Asse ect to the order of the ITAT withi hich ITAT order is received by or Chief Commissioner or Pr. C he case where fresh assessmen ly, the assessee contended th ot been given within three mont t is entitled for additional intere od of 182 days from 01.04.2022
ted.
peal, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicate n of the Appellant has been that the order was passed on 03.09.2021 and the sam rned AO as well as the Principal CIT Ran cember 2021. Since the order of the Hon'bl ed in the office of the concerned PCIT by Dec re is no fresh assessment to be made pursu acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
mail. As per the ssing Officer is in three months the relevant Pr.
Commissioner of nt is required to hat effect of the ths of its receipt st u/s 244A(1A)
2 to 30.09.2022
ed the issue in of the e was nge 8, e ITAT cember uant to Hon'ble ITAT's
153(5) are very order should b
Hon'ble ITAT's
PCIT. However documentary p the appellant
Range 8 in Dec proof and in vie dismissed.”
4. We have heard r relevant material on for giving effect to th within the stipulated of the order of the IT is reproduced as und
“(5) Where effe section 260 or given by the A the case may fresh assessm
92CA, as the c period of three under section 2
received by Commissioner case may be, passed by Commissioner case may be] :
Provided that w the Transfer Pr such order wit control, the Prin such request in Pricing Officer, additional perio
[Provided furt section 254 or 264 requires v
Via order dated 03.09.2021, the provisions of S ry clear that the order giving effect to such be given within 3 months from the date on order was served in the office of the conc r the appellant has not been able to provid proof in favour of his argument. The conten that order was served on AO and Princip cember 2021 is not supported by any docum ew of the same Ground of appeal of the appel rival submission of the parties a record. The section 153(5) of t he order of the ITAT, except fr d period of three or six months f
TAT. For ready reference the re der:
ect to an order under section 250 or section section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Offic be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by ma ment or reassessment [or fresh order under s case may be], such effect shall be given wi e months from the end of the month in which 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section the Principal
Chief
Commissioner or or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, the order under section 263 or section 2
the [Principal
Chief
Commissioner or or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, where it is not possible for the Assessing Off ricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give ef thin the aforesaid period, for reasons beyo ncipal Commissioner or Commissioner on rec n writing from the Assessing Officer [or the Tr as the case may be], if satisfied, may all od of six months to give effect to the order:
ther that where an order under section 2
section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or s verification of any issue by way of submiss acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT's which cerned de any ntion of pal CIT mentary llant is and perused the the Act provides esh assessment from the receipt levant provision
254 or s to be cer, as aking a section ithin a h order
262 is Chief as the 264 is Chief as the ficer [or ffect to nd his ceipt of ransfer low an 250 or section sion of any document opportunity of order giving eff
254 or section shall be made
4.1 Therefore, the limitation of three m giving effect to the o then, the assessee is the Act on the refund provision is reproduc
“(1A) In a case an order unde section 262 o otherwise than the assessee s payable under amount of refu annum, for the of expiry of the to the date on w
4[Provided th reassessment a the period for d assessee unde date on which accordance wi section 245 an is withheld] , sh
4.2 In the instant reason that the date
CIT or CIT was no assessee presumed th the PCIT or CIT on da
Via by the assessee or any other person or wh being heard is to be provided to the assesse ffect to the said order under section 250 or s
260 or section 262 or section 263 or sectio within the time specified in sub-section (3).]”
Assessing officer has to co months or six months, whichev order of the ITAT. If the AO fa s eligible for additional interest u d if any arises to him. The rele ced as under:
where a refund arises as a result of giving ef er section 250 or section 254 or section 2
r section 263 or section 264, wholly or p n by making a fresh assessment or reasses hall be entitled to receive, in addition to the in r sub-section (1), an additional interest on fund calculated at the rate of three per ce e period beginning from the date following th e time allowed under sub-section (5) of sectio which the refund is granted:]
hat where proceedings for assessmen are pending in respect of an assessee, in com determining the additional interest payable t er this sub-section, the period beginning fro such refund is withheld by the Assessing Off ith and subject to provisions of sub-section nd ending 4a[with the date up to which such hall be excluded.]”
case the sole issue of dispute of the service of the order of the ot mentioned in the order giv hat order of the ITAT must have ate when it was issued, and the acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
u/s 244A(1A) of vant part of the ffect to 260 or partly, sment, nterest n such ent per he date on 153
nt or mputing to such om the fficer in n (2) of refund e is due to the e ITAT on the Pr.
ving effect. The e been served on erefore, the date on which refund issu prescribed in section amount of interest u/
of hearing before us, filed a report from th that said order of th
CIT-8, Mumbai on 28
Assessing Officer is d section 153(5) of the 244A(1A) of the Act i of appeal of the as purposes.
5. The ground Nos off of brought fo depreciation. The rel dispute is reproduced
“21. I have gon part of the O
Appellant and Book. The cont available broug the latest orde off against the 14,29,87,288. 12,53,12,905 w
February 2011
learned ACIT d
March 2011 by 2011. As the sa officer hence th
Via ued being beyond the period of t
153(5), the assessee was entitle
/s 244A(1A) of the Act. Now du the Ld. Departmental Represen he Assessing Officer wherein he e Tribunal was received in the 8.01.2022. In view of the date of directed to verify compliance of t
Act and allow the interest in t in accordance with law. The gro ssessee is accordingly allowed s. 3 &4 of the appeal relate to orward business losses an levant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) d as under:
ne through the OGE order and the computatio
GE order, the detailed written submission the supporting documents submitted in the tention of the Appellant is that as per the late ght forward losses (based on the assessed rs for the relevant years for which the loss b e assessed income for the year under cons
The learned
ACIT has considered t which was computed as per the rectification
1. However, the contention of the applica did not consider the rectification application y Appellant pursuant to rectification order dat aid application has never been disposed of by here is no question why the figures coming acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
ntative (DR) has e has submitted office of the Pr.
f the receipt, the the provisions of terms of section ound Nos. 1 & 2
d for statistical the issue of set nd unabsorbed on the issue in n sheet forming ns filed by the e form of Paper est records, the income as per belongs) for set- sideration is R$
the losses at order dated 25
ant is that the filed dated 11
ted 25 February y the assessing in it should be considered. In applicant is dis
4.1 We have heard the relevant material that rectification ap against the rectifica disposed off thus re the losses. The Ld. D disposing off rectif
11.03.2011. In view restore this issue b verification of the cla
11.03.2011 and com business losses/ una
Accordingly, the grou statistical purposes.
pressed and same is 5. Now, we take u
2011-12. The groun under:
Non-grant of a 1. erred in reje interest u/s. 2
which time lim
Income-Tax App date of grant
Via n view of the above the Ground of appea smissed.”
rival submissions of the parti l on record. It is the contention pplication of the assessee dat ation order dated 25.02.2011
sulting into lower amount of c
DR could not provide any ready fication application of the a of the above facts, we feel it back to the file of the Assess aims made in the rectification ap mpute the correct amount of b absorbed depreciation eligible t und Nos. 3 & 4 of appeal are a The ground No. 5 of the a dismissed as infructuous.
up appeal of the assessee for a nds raised by the assessee are additional interest on refund u/s. 244A (1
ecting the ground of the Appellant of non-gra
244A (IA) of the Act, at the rate of 3 percen mit to pass the Order Giving Effect to the o ppellant Tribunal ('ITAT') expired u/s. 153(5) o of refund alleging that the Appellant has acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
ted 11.03.2011
has not been carry forward of y reply regarding assessee dated t appropriate to sing Officer for pplication dated brought forward to the assessee.
also allowed for appeal was not assessment year e reproduced as 1A):
nt of additional t, from date on rder of Hon'ble of the Act to the s not provided documentary p
Principal CIT.
2. should have order of ITAT
Appellant.
Non- grant of 3. erred in alle to the opportun responses filed
5.1 The ground No ground Nos. 1 and relating to claim o
244A(1A) of the Act.
AY 2006-07 and AY
28.01.2022 and ther be computed in the 2006-07. Accordingl mutandis. The groun dismissed as infructu
6. Now, we take u
2011-12. The groun under:
1. "Whether on Supreme Court
Tax Deducted the claim was otherwise subs documents?"
Via proof vis-à-vis service of the ITAT order t called for the records from AO to verify the d by the AO instead of summarily rejecting th f opportunity of virtual hearing ging non receipt of any reply from the Appell nity for video conferencing granted without a d by the Appellant seeking the opportunity.
s. 1 and 2 of the appeal are 2 of the appeal for assessmen of additional interest refund
Since the ITAT has passed a co
2011-12 which was served on refore, interest u/s 244A(1A) of manner of direction given for a ly, the issue in dispute is d nd No. 3 was not pressed and th uous.
up appeal of Revenue for the a nds raised by the Revenue are n the facts and circumstances of the case and t decision in Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR at Source (TDS) claimed by the assessee ca s not specifically made in the return of stantiated by the relevant TDS certificates acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
nt year 2006-07
under section ommon order for n the Pr. CIT on f the Act has to assessment year decided mutatis herefore same is assessment year e reproduced as d in light of the R 323 (SC)), the an be allowed if income but is and supporting

T (A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts a 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld.
be set aside and that of the AO restored.
o amend or alter any ground or add a new gr at the time of hearing spute in the grounds raised re ted at source of Rs.24,49,56,3
e of Rs.26,40,46,810/- thereby
,491/-. The finding of the Ld produced as under:
e through the OGE order and the computation
GE order, the detailed written submission the supporting documents submitted in the pellant has claimed TDS credit of Rs 24,4
of income and it claimed an additional TDS c
90,90,491 (TDS credit appearing in latest for s 26,40,46,810 less TDS credit granted by A 49,56,319), as the corresponding income was ification application, however the AO while pa
T's order did not grant such additional TDS cr ntion of the Appellant is that the correspon claim for the additional TDS credit has been o r consideration, hence such additional TDS c year under consideration. Therefore, the AO m of the Appellant and if the corresponding in nt during the year and TDS is duly deducted l be allowed. If the claim is found incorrect th ld.”
rival submissions of the parti on record. We find that the Ld.
erify the claim of the assessee with law. The contention of the on of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
CIT (A) on the The appellant round that may elate to granting
19/- as against y granting short
. CIT(A) on the n sheet forming ns filed by the e form of Paper
9,56,319 in its credit of Rs TDS rm 26AS for AY
AO in the OGE s offered to tax, assing the OGE redit claimed by nding income in offered to tax in credit has to be O is directed to ncome is offered d and reflected, hen the action of ies and perused
CIT(A) has only of the TDS and Revenue is that rt in the case of Goetz India Ltd. v. C be entertained by the specifically in the ret bonafide claim can b held by the Hon’ble
(supra). Accordingly, directed the Assessin law. We do not find the issue in dispute a has already not given directed to comply a directions. The grou dismissed.
8. In the result, a statistical purposes w
Order pronounced in (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 23/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
Via

CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) such claim e Assessing Officer if such claim turn of income. We are of the op be entertained by the appellate e Supreme Court in the case
, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted ng Officer to verify and allow in a any infirmity in the order of th and accordingly we uphold the n effect to the direction of ld CI nd give effect to finding of ld C und of appeal of the Revenue appeals of the assessee are all whereas appeal of the Revenue i n the open Court on 23/01/20
-
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
he Ld. CIT(A) on same. If the AO
IT(A), then he is CIT(A) under our e is accordingly lowed partly for is dismissed.
025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

////

Via

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu acom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd.
gistrar) umbai