DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1010/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 February 2018AY 2001-024 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that only statutory interest under Section 244A is admissible, not interest on interest. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals clarified that the Sandvik Asia Ltd. judgment was misinterpreted and did not allow for interest on interest.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing interest on interest. The CIT(A) had relied on the Sandvik Asia Ltd. judgment. The Revenue argued that this judgment was clarified by the Supreme Court in the Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals case.

What were the issues?

Whether interest on statutory interest is admissible. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments in Sandvik Asia Ltd. and Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1010/JP/2017

Hearing: 27/02/2018Pronounced: 27/02/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1010/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2001-02 cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vs. Income Tax, Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Circle-6, Jaipur. Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 8312 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Richa Khoda (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/02/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 27/02/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BENCH

This is the appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of

the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner dated 29/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2001-02, wherein

the revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: “(i) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) is justified in applying the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs CIT (280 ITR 643) dated 27/01/2006 for allowing interest on interest, despite the fact that the said judgment has been revised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18/09/2013 in the case of M/s Gujrat Fluoro Chemicals (SLP)(C)

ITA 1010/JP/2017_ 2 DCIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

No. 11406/2008, wherein it has held that only statutory interest U/s 244A is admissible and not interest on interest.”

2.

While pleading on behalf of the revenue, the ld CIT DR has

submitted that this issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of M/s Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals while deciding SLP (C)

No. 11406/2008 in its order dated 18th September, 2013 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically decided the issue as under:

“6. In our considered view, the aforesaid judgment has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue. They are of the view that in Sandvik case (supra) this Court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment. In other words, the interpretation placed is that the Revenue is obliged to pay an interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period.

7.

As we have already noticed, in Sandvik case (supra) this Court was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the great prejudice caused to it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same not an interest on interest.

8.

Further it is brought to our notice that the Legislature by the Act No. 4 of 1988(w.e.f. 01.04.1989) has inserted Section 244A to the Act which provides for interest on refunds under various contingencies. We clarify

ITA 1010/JP/2017_ 3 DCIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.”

3.

On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has relied on the

order of the ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) should be applied in the

assessee’s case.

4.

The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The Bench

have considered the case laws relied upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat Vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) has

clarified that it is only that interest provided for under the statute, which

may be claimed by the assessee from the revenue and no interest on

such statutory interest. The ratio laid down in the case of Sandvik Asia

Limited Vs CIT & Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 508 is not at all applicable to the

facts of the assessee’s case. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed the revenue to pay compensation for an inordinate delay on the

part of revenue in refunding the amount which includes the statutory

interest but in assessee’s case no such facts exists wherein the revenue

can be said to be at fault for delay. Since the issue has been clarified

and categorically decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

ITA 1010/JP/2017_ 4 DCIT Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. CIT Vs Gujarat Vs Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) which in law of the land, hence we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko fot; iky jko fot; iky jko½ fot; iky jko ¼Hkkxpan Hkkxpan Hkkxpan½ ½ ½ ½ Hkkxpan (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th February, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran 2. Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1010/JP/2017) 6.

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →