High Court Of Bombay
Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. vs. O.P. Srivastava, CIT
Section 214(1A)
Asst. Year 1982-83
H.L. Gokhale & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
Writ Petn. No. 1387 of 1992
13th December, 2005
Counsel Appeared
S.J. Mehta, for the Petitioner : Ashok Kotangale, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
H.L. Gokhale, J. :
Heard Mr. Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Kotangale appears for the respondent.
2. This petition has been admitted way back in the year 1992 and has been pending for final determination. The petition seeks to challenge the order dt. 30th Jan., 1992 passed by the CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.
3. The facts leading to this revision and the said order dt. 30th Jan., 1992 are as follows : For asst. yr. 1982-83, the petitioner filed return of income on 31st July, 1982 declaring income of Rs. 56,53,380. The assessment order was passed on 31st Jan., 1985 determining the income at Rs. 71,91,717 by making various disallowances. As per the assessment order, the AO granted the petitioner refund of Rs. 10,25,207 inclusive of interest. It may be noted that s. 214 of the IT Act, 1961 came to be amended on 1st April, 1985 whereby interest payable by the Government to the assessee could be increased or reduced by the AO while giving effect to the higher authorities.
4. Regarding the disallowance made by the AO, the petitioner filed an appeal and it was allowed by the CIT(A) on 21st Jan., 1986. On 10th March, 1986, the AO gave effect to the order of CIT(A) dt. 21st Jan., 1986. As per the said order dt. 10th March, 1986, the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 15,45,081. On 16th May, 1986, the AO issued refund order for Rs. 18,36,801 consisting of Rs. 15,45,081 being refund of tax and Rs. 2,91,720 towards interest under s. 214.
5. The petitioner made a representation on 1st April, 1987 to the AO seeking the details of the refund so as to know how the interest was calculated. Reminders were sent and finally on 30th Dec., 1988, the AO gave the break-up of interest given to the petitioner. On noticing that interest under s. 214 has been calculated on the refund due as per the original assessment order, by totally ignoring the amended s. 214, the petitioner filed a revision application before the CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act. The said revision came to be rejected by the order dt. 30th Jan., 1992 which is impugned before us.
6. Two grounds are given in that order. Firstly that there was delay. As far as this aspect is concerned, on the facts which are narrated above, it cannot be said that there was delay and the revision could not be rejected only on that ground. The second ground for rejecting the application was that the amended provisions of s. 214(1A) are applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 and not in respect for the year in question. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. (2001) 168 CTR (Bom) 337 : (2001) 249 ITR 756 (Bom). The Division Bench has held therein that the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 is procedural in nature and, therefore, it will apply to all the pending actions. This being so, sub-s. (1A) which was introduced in s. 214 will apply to the petitioner’s case. There is no substance in the second ground of rejection of revision.
7. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and set aside the order dt. 30th Jan., 1992 passed by the CIT. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to pay the interest to the petitioner as permissible under s. 214(1A) of the IT Act.
8. Rule is made absolute as above. There will be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 286 ITR 86]
