Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Tvs Electronics Ltd on 13 December, 2021
T.C.A.No.660 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A. No. 660 of 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai. .. Appellant
Versus
M/s.TVS Electronics Ltd.,
"Jayalakshmi Estates",
29, Haddows Road,
Chennai. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench,
dated 30.10.2009 in I.TA.No.226/Mds/2009.
For Appellant : Ms.V. Pushpa, Standing Counsel for IT
For Respondent : Mr.Subbaraya Iyer
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, in I.T.A.No.226/Mds/2009, relating to the
assessment year 2002-03.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.660 of 2010
2. By order dated 20.08.2010, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in holding interest under Section 234 D is
leviable only from assessment year 2004-05.
3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the appellant/Revenue as well as the respondent/assessee jointly
submitted that the substantial question of law raised herein has already been
considered and decided by this Court in favour of the Revenue by judgment
dated 19.03.2019 in the assessee's own case in TCA.Nos.1457 and 1458 of
2008, the relevant passage of which, is usefully extracted hereunder:
"5.On the Second Question of Levy of Interest under
section 234D of the Act on the excess refund made to the
Assessee along with the Assessment intimation sent to him
under section 143(1) of the Act, the learned senior standing
counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to a judgment of
this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fisher
Sanmar Ltd, (2014) 361 ITR 296 (Mad), wherein, a Division
Bench of this Court held that if the regular assessment of the
Assessee is made after the amendment of provisions of Section
234D of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2003, then, the provisions of
Section 234D for levy of interest on the excess refund amount
would become applicable, even though the assessment period
may be prior to the said date of amendment.”
“9. As for the Question of Levy of Interest under Section
234D of the Act, though computation of interest will depend
upon the appeal effect order to be passed, the quantum of net
payment is to be determined accordingly, after allowing
weighted deduction under Section 35 (2AB) of the Act, as
indicated above. The provisions of Section 234D of the Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.660 of 2010
have been held applicable for Assessment Year 2003-2004 in
question in terms of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Fisher Sanmar Ltd., cited supra.
Accordingly, Questions of Law Nos.3 and 4 are answered in
favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
10. Appeals of the Revenue are allowed in part, as above.
No costs."
4.Following the above decision, the question of law raised in this appeal
is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly,
this Tax Case Appeal is allowed. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
13.12.2021
av/rsh
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “C” Bench,
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.660 of 2010
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
T.C.A.No.660 of 2010
13.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
