My refund was paid but the s.244A interest due on it was left out. Is the department liable to pay interest on that omitted interest, or is that the forbidden interest on interest?
The Karnataka High Court held the department is liable, and that this is not interest on interest. Following the three-Judge Bench in CIT v. HEG Ltd., it held that the interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' that becomes due to the assessee under s.244A, so an order of refund must include the interest payable, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall.
Decided by the High Court (Alok Aradhe J and H.T. Narendra Prasad J) on 2020-10-07, reported as I.T.A. No. 582 of 2013 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru), arising out of ITA No. 367/Bang/2010. It bears on section 244A, section 244A(1), section 214, section 243, section 244, section 154, section 246A, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Refunds, Interest & Condonation, How Tax Law Is Read and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
This is the framing that survives CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, and it is how a practitioner should plead a delayed-interest claim. The Court dealt with Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals head on: it held that HEG Ltd., being a three-Judge Bench on the meaning of 'refund of any amount becomes due', bound it, and that it was therefore unnecessary to go into Sandvik Asia, a two-Judge decision later clarified in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The limits are equally important. The Court also held that where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only, and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only — so the claim lives or dies inside the section, and pre-1989 years governed by ss.214, 243 and 244 are a different regime. The opposite result on a differently framed claim was reached by the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals (21 June 2016); carry both.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, a nationalised commercial bank, filed returns for assessment years 1984-85 and 1987-88 declaring losses of Rs.2.29 crores and Rs.6.9 crores. Assessments completed on 21 March 1986 and 30 January 1989 determined income of Rs.30.68 crores and Rs.42.44 crores. On the assessee's appeals, effect was given to the appellate orders and interest was granted on the excess tax paid. The assessee then applied under s.154 on 24 October 2005 for further interest said to have become due on giving effect to the appellate orders. The Assessing Officer rejected the applications on 19 December 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 26 March 2007 on the ground that no appeal lies under s.246A against non-payment of interest. The Tribunal on 27 June 2008, relying on Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, held the Commissioner had authority to consider the claim and remitted the matter; the Commissioner (Appeals) on 8 January 2010 directed the assessing authority to determine the amount refundable including interest. The Revenue's appeal against that direction was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12 July 2013, and the Revenue appealed under s.260A. The Revenue relied on Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, on the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative and the Kerala High Court in Joseph Korah, and on Union of India v. Orient Enterprises; the assessee relied on the three-Judge Benches in CIT v. Narendra Doshi and CIT v. HEG Ltd., on the Delhi High Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation, on Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 and on Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' due under s.244A; an order of refund should include the interest payable on the amount refunded, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall, which does not amount to payment of interest on interest. Where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only (para 8).
The Court set out the legislative history — that interest was previously payable under ss.214, 243 and 244, that s.244A was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989 for assessment year 1989-90 onwards, and that the Board explained the change in paragraph 11.2 of Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 — and reproduced s.244A(1) (paras 6 and the text following it). It held the language of the section to be precise, clear and unambiguous: sub-section (1) speaks of interest on refund of the amounts due to an assessee, and the section fixes the dates from which interest is to be calculated (para 7). It then rested on the two three-Judge Bench decisions: Narendra Doshi, which upheld the Gujarat High Court decisions in D.J. Works and Chimanlal S. Patel holding the Revenue liable to pay interest on the amount of interest it had unjustifiably failed to pay; and HEG Ltd., which construed 'refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee' as making the interest component part of the amount due. Because a three-Judge Bench was binding on it, the Court held it unnecessary to deal with Sandvik Asia, a two-Judge decision subsequently clarified in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (para 8).
If the refund does not include interest due payable on the amount refunded, the revenue would be liable to pay interest on the short fall. This does not amount to payment of interest on interest.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Karnataka High Court held the department is liable, and that this is not interest on interest. Following the three-Judge Bench in CIT v. HEG Ltd., it held that the interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' that becomes due to the assessee under s.244A, so an order of refund must include the interest payable, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall. This was decided by the High Court (Alok Aradhe J and H.T. Narendra Prasad J) and bears on section 244A, section 244A(1), section 214, section 243, section 244, section 154, section 246A, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as I.T.A. No. 582 of 2013 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru), arising out of ITA No. 367/Bang/2010. This is the framing that survives CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, and it is how a practitioner should plead a delayed-interest claim. The Court dealt with Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals head on: it held that HEG Ltd., being a three-Judge Bench on the meaning of 'refund of any amount becomes due', bound it, and that it was therefore unnecessary to go into Sandvik Asia, a two-Judge decision later clarified in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The limits are equally important. The Court also held that where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only, and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only — so the claim lives or dies inside the section, and pre-1989 years governed by ss.214, 243 and 244 are a different regime. The opposite result on a differently framed claim was reached by the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals (21 June 2016); carry both. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Compute the 'amount due' as tax plus s.244A interest to the date the refund was actually granted, and show arithmetically what the refund order omitted.
The assessee, a nationalised commercial bank, filed returns for assessment years 1984-85 and 1987-88 declaring losses of Rs.2.29 crores and Rs.6.9 crores. Assessments completed on 21 March 1986 and 30 January 1989 determined income of Rs.30.68 crores and Rs.42.44 crores. On the assessee's appeals, effect was given to the appellate orders and interest was granted on the excess tax paid. The assessee then applied under s.154 on 24 October 2005 for further interest said to have become due on giving effect to the appellate orders. The Assessing Officer rejected the applications on 19 December 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 26 March 2007 on the ground that no appeal lies under s.246A against non-payment of interest. The Tribunal on 27 June 2008, relying on Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, held the Commissioner had authority to consider the claim and remitted the matter; the Commissioner (Appeals) on 8 January 2010 directed the assessing authority to determine the amount refundable including interest. The Revenue's appeal against that direction was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12 July 2013, and the Revenue appealed under s.260A. The Revenue relied on Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, on the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative and the Kerala High Court in Joseph Korah, and on Union of India v. Orient Enterprises; the assessee relied on the three-Judge Benches in CIT v. Narendra Doshi and CIT v. HEG Ltd., on the Delhi High Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation, on Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 and on Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. The matter was decided on 2020-10-07 by the High Court (Alok Aradhe J and H.T. Narendra Prasad J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' due under s.244A; an order of refund should include the interest payable on the amount refunded, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall, which does not amount to payment of interest on interest. Where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only (para 8).
The Court set out the legislative history — that interest was previously payable under ss.214, 243 and 244, that s.244A was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989 for assessment year 1989-90 onwards, and that the Board explained the change in paragraph 11.2 of Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 — and reproduced s.244A(1) (paras 6 and the text following it). It held the language of the section to be precise, clear and unambiguous: sub-section (1) speaks of interest on refund of the amounts due to an assessee, and the section fixes the dates from which interest is to be calculated (para 7). It then rested on the two three-Judge Bench decisions: Narendra Doshi, which upheld the Gujarat High Court decisions in D.J. Works and Chimanlal S. Patel holding the Revenue liable to pay interest on the amount of interest it had unjustifiably failed to pay; and HEG Ltd., which construed 'refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee' as making the interest component part of the amount due. Because a three-Judge Bench was binding on it, the Court held it unnecessary to deal with Sandvik Asia, a two-Judge decision subsequently clarified in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "If the refund does not include interest due payable on the amount refunded, the revenue would be liable to pay interest on the short fall. This does not amount to payment of interest on interest." The decision followed or applied CIT v. HEG Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC) — followed; CIT v. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) — followed; D.J. Works v. Dy. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 227 (Gujarat) — approved through Narendra Doshi; Chimanlal S. Patel v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 419 (Gujarat) — approved through Narendra Doshi; Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC) — not dealt with, being a two-Judge decision later clarified.
It was decided by the High Court on 2020-10-07 and is reported as I.T.A. No. 582 of 2013 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru), arising out of ITA No. 367/Bang/2010. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 244A, section 244A(1), section 214, section 243, section 244, section 154, section 246A, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' due under s.244A; an order of refund should include the interest payable on the amount refunded, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall, which does not amount to payment of interest on interest. Where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only (para 8). It arises in Refunds, Interest & Condonation, How Tax Law Is Read and Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 244A, section 244A(1), section 214, section 243, section 244, section 154, section 246A, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Alok Aradhe J and H.T. Narendra Prasad J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Plead the claim as s.244A interest on the shortfall in the amount due, not as interest on interest, and say so expressly in the ground of appeal. Rely on CIT v. HEG Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC) for the proposition that the interest component partakes of the character of the amount due; a three-Judge Bench is the answer to the two-Judge Sandvik problem. Check the year: for interest falling to be computed after 1 April 1989 the claim must be worked entirely within s.244A; for earlier years the s.214/243/244 regime and its own case law apply. Where the refund follows an appellate order, take s.244A(1A) as well and check whether the additional interest has been allowed.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed, and the underlying question is contested. The Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Tax Appeal Nos. 674 and 675 of 2007, 21 June 2016), read in full on this pass, answered a claim framed as interest on delayed interest in favour of the Revenue on the strength of CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. Whether an appeal was preferred against the present judgment was not checked. CIT v. HEG Ltd. and CIT v. Narendra Doshi, on which the whole reasoning rests, were not read directly and their holdings here are taken from this Court's account of them. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The appeal before the High Court is I.T.A. No. 582 of 2013 for assessment year 1987-88, but the facts and the computation run across assessment years 1984-85 and 1987-88, both of which precede the insertion of s.244A with effect from 1 April 1989 — a point the Revenue took in rejoinder (para 5) and which the Court did not separately resolve before concluding at para 8 that interest falling to be computed after 1 April 1989 must be computed under s.244A only. A reader relying on this judgment for a pre-1989 year should read paragraphs 5 and 8 together and treat the position as unsettled. The judgment sets out s.244A(1) at length between paragraphs 6 and 7; that reproduction is of the text as at 2020 and should not be assumed to be current. The final disposal appears in an unnumbered paragraph after paragraph 8. CIT v. HEG Ltd. and CIT v. Narendra Doshi were NOT read directly on this pass. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' due under s.244A; an order of refund should include the interest payable on the amount refunded, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall, which does not amount to payment of interest on interest. Where the interest falls to be computed after 1 April 1989 it must be computed in accordance with s.244A only and the assessee is entitled to interest in terms of s.244A only (para 8).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?