T. N. Chopra, A.M. - (1.) THIS appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 17th July, 1988, for asst. yr. 1992-93 whereby the rejection of claim of interest under s. 244A made by the AO has been upheld.
(2.) The brief facts of the case, relevant for resolving the controversy before us may be noticed : For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed the original return on 31st December, 1992, and paid self-assessment tax under s. 140A amounting to Rs. 2,89,479 on 31st December, 1992. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 29th January, 1993, and a further payment of self-assessment tax amounting to Rs. 4,41,799 was made on 28th January, 1993. The AO completed the assessment on 30th March, 1995. For the earlier asst. yr. 1989-90, the Tribunal vide its order, dt. 30th September, 1996, allowed substantial relief, thus entitling the assessee to carry forward loss of Rs. 53,96,082. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order, the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1992-93 under appeal was reduced to Rs. nil after allowing set off of unabsorbed business loss as allowed by the Tribunal. The AO, therefore, passed order of rectification under s. 154 on 8th October, 1996, granting the refund. However, the AO declined to allow any interest under s. 244A. The assessee claimed payment of interest on the self-assessment tax paid on 1st January, 1993, 31st December, 1992, and 28th January, 1993. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) held that Explanation to s. 244A refers to post-assessment payments of tax where the notice of demand is to be issued under s. 156 and, therefore, the payments made under s. 140A are not covered under cl. (b) of s. 244A(1). The learned CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
(3.) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D.J. Works vs. Dy. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 227 (Guj) and Laxmiben Hemdas Patel (1994) 209 ITR 267 (Guj) argued that the assessee is entitled to interest on the excess payments made by it even if the same include payments made under s. 140A. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the following decisions of the Tribunal : (i) Phelps & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1988) 25 ITD 96 (Del); (ii) Smt. K. Mahalakshmamma vs. ITO (1984) 7 ITD 180 (Hyd); and (iii) 129 Taxation 67 (JP).;