IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4765/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2008-09)

Goldencross Pharma v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Tower A, 1st Floor, Peninsula Current JAO-DCIT, Central Business Park, Ganpatrao Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, MK Road, Current JAO-906, Mumbai – 400013, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharashtra MK Road, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCG0541J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by Shri Yogesh Thar, AR Respondent by Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

03.06.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 10.01.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2008-09.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. Short Grant of Interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act a. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)) erred in law and facts of the case in rejecting the appellant's contention that the refund should be first adjusted against the interest due u/s 244A and the remaining, if any, against the principal component.

b. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that any refund received shall first be adjusted towards the interest receivable by the appellant and thereafter, the balance shall be adjusted against the principal amount of refund.

c. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the adjustment of refund against the interest first and balance against principal is in accordance with judicial precedents laid down by various courts.

d. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the binding nature of the decisions of higher judicial authorities which have consistently held that the refund should be adjusted first against interest due u/s 244A and the balance, if any, against the principal.

e. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the analogy and principles of equality laid down u/s140A of the Act, wherein the allocation should me made towards interest first and then to the principal amount for adjusting the taxes paid.

f. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the adjustment of refund in the manner pleaded by the appellant is in line with the principles of natural justice and equity.

2. Misinterpretation of the facts on record a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law that the appellant has claimed the interest u/s 244A of the Act upto the date of filing the appeal. In fact, the appellant has clearly sought interest u/s 244A upto the date of issuance of the refund voucher.

b. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts by disregarding that there was a time gap between the order u/s 154 of the Act passed and the refund voucher actually issued to the appellant.

c. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted the interest u/s 244A till the actual date of refund issued, in accordance with the statutory provisions and judicial interpretations.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee has challenged short grant of interest u/s 244A of the Act by the AO in the rectification order u/s 154 of the act passed which has been upheld by the appellate authority. It is claimed that the AO was not correct in failing to allocate refund first against the interest component and then balance towards principal component. It is stated that the AO had to follow the analogy and principals of equality of section 140A of the act for allocation of interest first and then principal for adjusting taxes paid.

4. According to the ld.CIT(A),as per the facts, the AO passed an order u/s 14