COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/581/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01047380201307 October 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in its decision. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 1984-85. The core issue was whether interest could be granted on delayed refunds, specifically on the interest amount itself.

What were the issues?

Whether interest can be granted on the interest component of a delayed refund, and if the Department wrongly retained the refund amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.581 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

1.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

MANGALORE-575001.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-1, UDUPI-576101. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK H.O. MANIPAL-576104. ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.366/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (II) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12-7-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.366/BANG/2010 BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE FOR A.Y.1984-85.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 1984-85. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2014 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal preferred by Revenue by not appreciating the fact that interest on delayed refund interest cannot be granted since there is no specific provision in the Act for payment of interest on the amount of interest and in not considering the fact that the Department has not wrongly retained the refund amount?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in relying upon the case of CIT v Sandvik Asia Ltd. (SC) wherein interest is not granted when it is due and granted subsequently?

2.

For the reasons assigned by us in the order passed today in I.T.A No.582/2013, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →