IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6972/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2005-06)

ITA No.6973/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2006-07)

ITA No.6974/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2007-08)

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v/s. Assistant Commissioner of 13^th Floor, Maker Tower – F, बनाम Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400

050, Maharashtra 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACL1799C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)

and Amicus Curiae Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of even date passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the order passed u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2005- 06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the issues are common and interlinked, these appeals are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. ITA No.6972/Mum/2024 for AY 2005-06 is taken up as the ‘Lead case’. Decision herein would apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by Ld JAO denying interest of Rs. 1,11,67,193/- @ 6% claimed by the Appellant Assessee in respect of tax refund of Rs. 11,16,71,928/- determined under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 which was released / adjusted after delay of 20 months. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that said claim of interest is allowable either u/s 244A of Income Tax Act OR under principles of fairness and natural justice and principles of unjust enrichment as held by Various Courts in decisions cited before the CIT(A) like (a) Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [363 ITR 658 SC) (b) Hon'ble Bom HC in UPS Freight Services India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 489 (Bombay) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Dwejesh Acharya v. Income Tax Officer [2023] 157 taxmann.com 332.

3. In this case of a Public Sector undertaking of Government of India, the assessee filed VSVS application as per under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020(DTVSV).The ld.Pr.CIT while accepting the application passed order determining refund of Rs 11.16 cr. Order Giving Effect(OGE) u/s 5(2) of DTVSV was passed on 18.08.2022 and tax refund of Rs 11.61 cr. was issued to the assessee on 05.01.2023 who vide an application u/s 154 of the Act claimed interest on this sum in terms of section 244A(1)(b) of the Act stating that there was delay over 90 days in issuing the refund as it was issued after more than 20 months. However, the ld.AO rejected the request on the ground that no interest was allowable on the above Scheme. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal too, agreeing with the AO in rejecting the claim of the assessee by observing that the section 244A (1)(b) of the Act provides for tax refunds due under the provisions of the Act i.e., Order Giving Effect (OGE) to assessment orders, rectification under normal provision u/s.154 of the Act, appeal effect orders, etc. On the other hand, the impugned refund had become due under DTVSV Act which is a relief scheme floated by the Government for reducing the disputed matters. As such, the provisions of section 244A of the Act had no application in the present case, and therefore, the claim made by the assessee was found untenable and the appeal was dismissed.

4. Before us, the ld.AR has argued that the ld.CIT(A) did not take into account various judicial decisions which are directly applicable to the facts and support the claim of the assessee for i