Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mahindra Towers, Worli, Vs. Circle-2(2) Mumbai-400018 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAACM3025E Assessee by .. Shri H.P. Mahajani, AR Revenue by .. Shri. Suman Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 06-03-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 06-03-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-5, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-IT-16/12-13/89/13-14 dated 12-12-2013. The Assessment was framed by DCIT, Mumbai for the A.Y. 1994-95 vide order dated 18-03-1997 u/s 143(3) r. w. s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in withdrawing the interest granted under section 244A (1) (b) of the Act, withdrawn under section 154 of the act. For this assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to cancel the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Income tax Act withdrawing the interest granted under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.; AY. 1994-95
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer in restoring the interest originally granted under Section 244A(1)(b) amounting to INR 3,53.41,569/- without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to restrict the withdrawal of interest under Section 244A(1)(b) to the extent of INR 178,01.890/-.”
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the findings of the CIT(A) vide Para 4.1.2 as under: - “4.1.2 Thus this is a case where I find that AO should not have charged the interest under section 234D as that provision has been inserted in the Act w.e.f. 01-06-2003 and as such the computation of tax payable needs to be revised. While doing so the AO is directed the annex detailed working of the interest payable under section 244A, to the ITNS 150A statement. For providing natural justice, it is expected that he would look into the computation given by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The assessee is expected to provide a copy of the computation given by it during the appellate proceedings, to the AO also and co-operate with him in the verification thereof.”
In view of the above findings, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not at all adjudicate the issue and according to him the AO will not be able to understand what is the direction of the CIT(A). On a query from the Bench learned Sr. DR fairly stated that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for passing a speaking order. To this proposition learned Counsel for the assessee fairly agreed.
After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that let this issue be examined by CIT(A) and pass a speaking
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.; AY. 1994-95 order as the facts are not at all clear from the order of CIT(A). Order of CIT(A) is set aside.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-03-2017.