The Assessee filed its original return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring a loss of ` 129.36 crores and claiming a TDS refund of ` 15.39 crores. Pursuant to a composite scheme of arrangement approved by the Delhi High Court, the system integration undertaking of its holding company merged with the Assessee with effect from 01.11.2013 with appointed date 01.01.2013. After recasting its accounts to align them with the court’s order, the Assessee filed a revised return declaring a loss of ` 130.26 crores and claiming additional TDS credit of ` 10.25 crores, making the aggregate refund claim ` 25.64 crores. Due to a technical glitch, the TDS credit did not get reflected in the e-filed revised return though it appeared in the uploaded XML and was duly reflected in Form 26AS. The Assessee promptly lodged a complaint with the CPC on 04.04.2016 and informed the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) but did not grant the TDS refund. On a rectification application filed by the Assessee under section 154, the Assessing Officer granted the TDS refund but denied interest under section 244A, stating that the delay was attributable to the Assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the Assessee’s appeal holding that there was no lapse on its part. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s order. Dismissing the revenue’s appeal and deciding in favour of the Assessee, the Court held that interest under section 244A is payable as a matter of course and can be denied only in exceptional circumstances where the Assessee is in default or at fault. Further, under section 244A(2), if the Assessing Officer is of the view that delay is attributable to the Assessee, it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner who can decide which period is to be excluded; the Assessing Officer cannot give that power to himself. In the present case, the Assessing Officer having himself recorded the Assessee’s contention that TDS was reflected in Form 26AS but not in the revised return due to a technical glitch, he was not justified in denying interest by attributing the lapse to the Assessee. The finding of the AO was completely erroneous, and since both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had accepted the Assessee’s explanation, no substantial question of law arose.(AY. 2014-15)