GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay in passing the rectification order was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee should not be charged interest for the period of delay. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the levy of interest for two months.
What were the facts?
The assessee had a demand of Rs. 26.61 crores. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to adjudicate a pending rectification application for earlier years, which would result in a substantial refund, and adjust it against the current demand. The Assessing Officer levied interest under section 220(2) without considering the refund.
What were the issues?
Whether interest under section 220(2) can be levied when a substantial refund due to the assessee was pending adjudication and could have been adjusted against the demand.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)-1, Vadodara dated 10.06.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer charging interest of Rs.50.01 lakhs under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that notice of demand under section 156 of the Act was issued raising a demand of Rs.26.61 crores. It was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had preferred rectification application for earlier assessment years as per which substantial refund would become due to the assessee. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the pending rectification application and determine the refund due to the company and adjust the same against outstanding demand for the year under consideration. 4. The Assessing Officer did not consider the request made by the assessee and levied interest under section 220(2) of the Act at Rs.50,01,200/-.
ITA No.2572/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 2 of 3 5. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. Before us learned counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the Revenue authorities.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessment order is framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2011. The notice of demand was served upon the assessee on 04.01.2012 which means that due date for payment of demand expired after 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. We further find that while giving effect to the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer has also given effect to the rectification application preferred under section 154 of the Act for assessment year 2006-07. We find that the order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.02.2012. The application for rectification was made on 31.05.2011 and the Assessing Officer should have passed the rectification order within six months. But the same was passed after eight months. In our considered opinion, the delay of two months in passing the rectification order cannot be attributed to the assessee. It is a fact that the assessee was allowed refund of Rs.46.54 cores. Had the rectification was done on time, the refund of Rs.46.54 crores could have been adjusted against the demand which become due on 02.02.2012.
Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any reason why the assessee should be charged interest for the delay of two months which is not attributable to the assessee at all. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the levy of interest for two months. Appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
In the result, appeal is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of December, 2017)
Sd/- Sd/- Mahavir Prasad N.K. Billaiya (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 13th day of December, 2017 PBN/*
ITA No.2572/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 3 of 3
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order E COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad
More judgments on Section 220(2)
- Mulchand Ramkishan Laddha, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 874/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Kolors Healthcare LLP, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward (TDS)-1(4), HyderabadITA 532/HYD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Kolors Healthcare LLP, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward (TDS)-1(4), HyderabadITA 531/HYD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Kolors Healthcare LLP, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward (TDS)-1(4), HyderabadITA 530/HYD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Infodynamic Integration Technologies, Pune vs Income Tax Officer (TDS-2), PuneITA 873/PUN/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026