Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revised return when valid in Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cir 2(2), Mumbai on 30 September, 2019Matching Fragments
Admittedly, in the case before us, there had been no delay in the proceedings resulting in the refund for any reason attributable to the assessee. As a matter of fact, the assessee had quantified its claim for deduction u/s 80IA in respect of its Mithapur Power Plant in its second revised return of income that was validly filed on 29.03.2006 u/s 139 (5) of the Act. In fact, the assessment framed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dared 07.12.2006 is in itself based on the second revised return of income filed by the assessee. In our considered view, the CIT had misconstrued the scope of Sec. 244A(2) of the Act, and had wrongly confined the entitlement of the assessee towards interest on refund u/s 244A(1) to the claims which were raised in the original return of income. We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforesaid P a g e | 10 Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 view so arrived at by the CIT. As the proceedings resulting in the refund had not been delayed for any reason attributable to the assessee, therefore, in our considered view, the interest allowed by the A.O u/s 244A, vide his order dated 07.12.2006, on the basis of the validly filed second revised return of income of the assessee was well in order. Be that as it may, as the view taken by the A.O, vide his order dated 07.12.2006 as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards interest u/s 244A(1), was a plausible view, which we find is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker), therefore, the CIT was clearly divested of his jurisdiction to dislodge the order passed by the A.O, dated 07.12.2006. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT u/s 263, dated 23.02.2009 is „set aside‟ and the order passed by the A.O, dated 07.12.2006 quantifying the interest u/s 244A is restored. Before parting, we may herein observe, that as we have quashed the order passed by the CIT u/s 263, in terms of our aforesaid observations, therefore, the contentions advanced by the ld. A.R as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the CIT u/s 263 are not being adverted to and are left open.