IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, vs. Dy. CIT, P7/A1N8:9 A, DSwBaPrJo2o7p3 N2Qag ar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur

280002, U.P.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A.

Revenue by: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR Date of hearing: 04.12.2025 Date of pro nouncement: O R D1 7E. 0R2 .2026 PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.04.2016. The grounds of ap“p1.e1a Bl EaCreA UaSsE u tnhdee Ird:.- "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in withdrawing the refund of interest amounting to Rs. 8,20,163/-, paid to the assessee u/s 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on excess amount of self-assessment tax paid u/s 140A of the Act.

1.2 BECAUSE the view taken by Id. "CIT(A)" while upholding the action of the Assessing Officer is based on misinterpretation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 244A of the Act, as applicable at the relevant point of time.

2. BECAUSE, in any case and without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, while upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in withdrawing the interest paid to the assessee u/s 244A of the Act, the ld. "CIT(A)" failed to appreciate that the issue of payment of interest on excess amount paid u/s 140A was debatable in nature and it could not have been decided by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act as the same did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

3. BECAUSE the case law relied by Id. "CIT(A)" is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.

5. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.

6. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal.”

2. The facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 31.03.2015 at a total income of Rs. 6,96,12,690/-. Later on, from a perusal of the record, the ld. AO noticed that interest under section 244A, amounting to Rs. 8,20,163/-, had been allowed on payments made under section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, in his opinion, the mistake was apparent from record, a notice under section 154 of the Act was issued on 6.04.2016 seeking to rectify the said mistake. In response to the said notice, the assessee, vide reply dated 16.04.2016 stated that various Courts had time and again considered and held that self-assessment tax paid, partakes the character of refund of any amount as appearing in section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The computation of interest on self-assessment tax has to be in terms of section 244A(1)(b) i.e. from the date of payment of such amount upto the date on which the refund was granted. Therefore, the assessee was rightly entitled to interest on self-assessment tax and the same had been correctly allowed. However, the ld. AO was not in agreement with the assessee. He quoted from the provisions of section 244A(1)(a) and rectified the assessment by way of disallowance of interest paid of Rs. 8,20,163/- under section 244A.

3. Aggrieved with the said rectification order, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the case of the assessee was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Court had adjudicated on the provisions of section 244A of the Act in the case of K. Lakshmanya & Co. vs. CIT (2017) 87 taxman.com 190 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that section 244A was even wider than section 244 of the Income Tax Act and was not restricted to refund being issued to the assessee in pursuance of an order r