Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 12 May, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण पुणे यायपीठ "बी
बी"
बी पुणे म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
ी डी.
डी. क णाकरा राव , लेखा सद य
एवं ी िवकास अव थी,
अव थी याियक सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 221 & 222/PUN/2015
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2009-10
B.T. Patil & Sons .......... अपीलाथ /
Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
4112, Patson House,
P.B. Road, Belgaum - 590 003,
Karnataka
PAN : AAACB7343N
बनाम v/s
DCIT, Central Circle,
Kolhapur .......... यथ /
Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Ulhas N. Kini & Shri O.S. Prabhu
Revenue by : Shri Hitendra Ninawe
सुनवाई क तारीख / घोषणा क तारीख /
Date of Hearing :08.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 12.05.2017
आदेश / ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
There are two appeals under consideration for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11. They are filed by the assessee against the common order of Commissioner of Income tax (A)-I & II, Kolhapur, dated 05-01-2015.
2. The common issue raised in these two appeals relate to allowing of interest u.s.244A of the Act in respect of the refund relatable to the taxes paid u/s.140A of the Act.
2
ITA Nos.221 & 222 /PUN/2015
3. At the outset, bringing our attention to the order of CIT(A) and also Ground No.2 mentioned in Form No.35 filed before the CIT(A), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the said Ground No.2 was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order on the said ground. He partly allowed the appeals of the assessee implying the dismissal of the said ground No.2.
4. After hearing both the sides on going through the facts and orders filed before us, it is noticed that ground mentioned below was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and by passing a speaking order on the same. The said ground read as under :
"On fact & in law, Ld. AO, Kolhapur erred by not allowing interest u/s.244A on illegally withheld tax refund (Int. on self assessment tax paid) from the date of refund order till the date of actual payment."
5. On perusal of Para Nos. 2 to 5 of the order of CIT(A), we find the CIT(A) has not given the reasons as to why interest u/s.244A was not allowable to the assessee in respect of the taxes paid u/s.140A of the Act. The CIT(A) has also not considered the judicial precedents existing on the subject. Considering the above factual matrix of this case, we are of the opinion that this issue should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) involving both the appeals with the direction that a speaking order must be passed by the CIT(A) on the above referred ground raised by the assessee before him. He shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee in both the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes. 3
ITA Nos.221 & 222 /PUN/2015
6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of May, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; दनांक Dated : 12th May, 2017.
सतीश
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)-I & II, Kolhapur
4. CIT-I & II, Kolhapur
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "B Bench" पुणे / DR, ITAT, "B Bench" Pune;
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स स यािपत ित //True Copy// //True Copy// सहायक रिज ार/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune