High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Roots Multiclean Ltd.
Section 115JJ, 234B, 234C
Asst. Year 2004-05
K. Raviraja Pandian & M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) No. 814 of 2008
20th April, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
J. Nareshkumar, for the Appellant : J. Balachandran, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. :
The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras ‘D’ Bench, Chennai, dt. 17th Feb., 2006 passed in ITA No. 554/Mad/2004.
2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows : The assessee is a company. For the asst. yr. 2002-03, the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 35,88,383 determining the tax and surcharge at Rs. 12,81,053. After determining the tax the AO deducted TDS an advance tax calculated interest under ss. 234B and 234C and finally brought forward tax credit under s. 115JAA was allowed by the AO. However, the assessee is aggrieved by this method of giving credit to the brought forward MAT credit and according to the assessee the same should have been treated on par with the TDS and tax credit should have been given right at the beginning. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who allowed the appeal. Against that, the Department preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal following its judgement in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed this appeal by formulating the following question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 115JAA and ss. 234B and 234C of the Act concluded that the MAT credit shall be set off before charging interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 is valid ?”
We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. The very same issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 887 of 2004 etc. batch on 9th April, 2009 [reported at CIT vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 224 CTR (Mad) 211—Ed.] and Division Bench has answered the issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by observing thus : “7. In respect of the first question of law, the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side are the same as the one advanced before the Delhi High Court (supra). The Delhi High Court has considered the relevant provisions and dealt with the matter in detail and held that the credit under s. 115JAA should be given effect to before charging of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has not produced any materials or given compelling reasons to take a contrary view with that of the Delhi High Court. In such circumstances, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. …………
18. In the present case, the intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest. Once the intention is clear, the Revenue cannot rely on the Form I to say that the MAT credit under s. 115JAA should be given only after tax and interest. Further, we have answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee i.e., the MAT credit under s. 115JAA should be given effect to before charging the interest under s. 234B and 234C. Rule 12(1)(a) and Form I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance tax, MAT credit under s. 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, we answer the questions 2 and 3 also in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue.”
5. The question of law involved in this case also is identical as the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench judgment (supra), the appeal is dismissed since the question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee.
[Citation : 327 ITR 65]
