Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Abu Dhabi Commerical Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs Ddit (It) 1(1), Mumbai on 3 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"L" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM)
I.T.A. No. 4566/Mum/2015
(Assessment Year 2010-11)
Abu Dhabi Commercial DCIT (International
Bank Ltd. Vs. Taxation) Scindia
75B, Rehmat Manzil House, N.M. Road
Veer Nariman Road Ballard Estate
Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 038.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN No. AAACA4216B
Assessee by Shri Dhanesh Bafna
Department by Shri M.V. Rajguru
Date of Hearing 3.8.2017
Date of Pronouncement 3.8.2017
ORDER
Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.3.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A)-55, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has placed following grounds :-
GROUND I
1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred, in law and on facts of the case, in not adjudicating the ground raised in relation to granting interest on interest under section 244A of the Act determined on account of non-grant of timely refund.
2. The Appellant therefore, prays that the interest on interest under section 244A of the Act be granted.
GROUND II
1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred, in law and on facts of the case, in affirming the action of the AO in rejecting the Appellant's claim for the benefit of the non--discrimination clause of the 2 India--UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and taxing the Appellant's income at the rate of 40 percent (plus surcharge and education cess) instead of at the rate applicable to a resident tax payer (i.e 30% plus surcharge and education cess).
2. The Appellant therefore, prays that the benefit of the Article 26 of the DTAA be granted and that its income be taxed at the rate of 30 percent instead of 40 percent (plus surcharge and education cess).
2. At the time of hearing learned AR fairly admitted that ground No. 2 has been decided against the assessee by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 14.2.2007 passed in assessee's own case in ITA No. 4316, 4317 & 211/Mum/2001 relating to A.Ys. 1995-96 to 1997-98. Accordingly, consistent with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench, we decide ground No. 2 against the assessee
3. With regard to ground No. 1, learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had computed interest u/s. 244A of the Act erroneously and hence assessee moved an application u/s. 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer for rectifying the same. However, the Assessing Officer did not adjudicate the petition filed by the assessee hence, the assessee raised a ground before the learned CIT(A) seeking direction for granting of interest u/s. 244 of the Act in accordance with law. However, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the same and hence the assessee has raised this ground before the Tribunal. Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer may be given suitable direction for granting interest u/s. 244A of the Act in accordance with law.
4. We heard learned Departmental Representative on this issue. The prayer of the assessee would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to dispose of the petition filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act seeking correct computation of interest u/s. 244A of the Act in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
35. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 3.8.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAVISH SOOD) (B.R.BASKARAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 3/8/2017
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
PS ITAT, Mumbai