Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the High Court held that while giving effect to CIT(A)’s order, it resulted in refund of certain sum and subsequently, on verification of records, Commissioner noticed that AO had failed to conduct proper enquiries and examine issues in an appropriate manner which gave rise to an erroneous enhanced refund as the Commissioner felt that delay in claiming enhanced refund was attributable to assesse and accordingly interest under section 244A of the Act was not allowable on said refund. The High Court held that since there was nothing in findings of Commissioner as to how the assessee delayed proceedings that resulted in refund or what were reasons that could be attributable to assessee and it was only in giving effect to CIT(A)’s order by AO which resulted in refund therefore it could not be stated that proceedings resulting in refund were delayed for reasons attributable to assessee wholly or in part. Accordingly the order of Tribunal is affirmed. SLP of Revenue is dismissed. (AY 2007-08).
PCIT v. Bank of Baroda (2024) 300 Taxman 266 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Bank of Baroda(2023) 294 Taxman 455 /333 CTR 835 (Bom)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest on refunds-Order passed giving effect to the order of the CIT(A)-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 244A, Art. 136]
Leave a Reply