Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-13/DCIT-7(3)(1)/70/2015-16 dated 08/07/2016 by raising following several grounds of appeal, the head of which reads as under:-
OOCL Logistics (India) Private Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 GROUND 1: The Learned CIT(A) has erred in observing that the Authorized 1. Representative (‘AR’) of the Appellant has not pressed ground no.2 and 3 (i.e. ground related to non-receipt of refund and short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act) during the course of appellate proceedings. GROUND 2: Non-receipt of refund by the Company.
GROUND 3: Short grant of interest under section 244A of the Act 3. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 7(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26/12/2011 accepting the business loss of Rs.222.70 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009. As evident from grounds of appeal
, the assessee is aggrieved by non-grant of refund & consequential interest for the impugned AY.
2. The Ld. CIT(A), upon appeal, has concluded the matter by making following observations:-
2. Grounds of appeal-
The following are the grounds of appeal in this case 1. “The learned AO erred in restricting the credit for taxes deducted at source (TDS) to RS.42,60,94/- as against the credit of RS.45,93,018/- as claimed by the appellant.
2. The learned AO erred in stating that a refund of Rs.46,16,231/- (inclusive of interest of Rs.3,61,641/- under section 244A of the Act) has been paid to the appellant.
3. Consequently, the interest granted under section 244A of the Act is lower than the correct amount of interest due to the appellant.”
3. Ground No.1- Vide this ground, the appellant has protested against the short- grant of credit of TDS. While the appellant had claimed credit of Rs.45,93,018/-, the AO had granted it only to the extent of Rs.42,60,904/-. The AO is directed to grant the credit claimed by the appellant subject to the verification. To that extent, ground no.1 is taken to have been allowed.
4. Ground nos.2 and 3 – Vide these grounds the appellant had protested against the short-grant of interest under section 244A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the refund granted to the appellant as also against the incorrect statement of the AO that refund had been granted. Before me, the AR of the appellant has not pressed these two grounds stating that while the refund has since been granted, short-grant of interest has also since been rectified by the AO. A noting to this effect has also been endorsed on the order-sheet by the AR. Ground nos.2 and 3 are accordingly dismissed.
5. To summarize, while ground no.1 is allowed, ground nos.2 and 3 are dismissed.