IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/

( Assessment Year : 1992-93)

निर्धारण वर् ा /

JCIT (IN SITU), Circle-1(1), Vs The Peerless General Finance Kolkata and Investment Company Limited Peerless Bhawan, 3, Esplanade East, Kolkata-700069 PAN No. :AABCT 3043 L ..

( Appellant) ( Respondent अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्यर्थी /

/Revenue by : Shri Sushanta Saha, Addl. CIT रधजस्व की ओर से

/Assessee by : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate and Ms.

निर्धाररती की ओर से Puja Somani, CA : 31/07/2025 Date of Hearing सुनवाई की तारीख / : 26/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement घोषणा की तारीख/

O R D E R

आदेश /

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM :

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated

26.09.2017, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-22, Kolkata, for the assessment year 1992-93.

2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal by the revenue for which the condonation petition has been filed. After perusing the contents of condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3. The only issue raised by the revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to interest on unpaid interest whereas there is no provisions as per the Income Tax Act to charge the interest on unpaid interest on the assessee as well as nowhere the powers give rights to the Assessing Officer to give interest on unpaid interest to the assessee.

4. Facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.154/251/254/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.11.2011 wherein the ld. Assessing Officer held that the interest u/s.244A of the Act calculated and allowed for a period mentioning from 01.03.1993 to 27.03.2007 instead of period from 01.01.1993 to 27.03.1997. Accordingly, a suo moto rectification u/s.154 of the Act was undertaken by issuing notice u/s.154 of the Act to the assessee. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and case was discussed and finally the said order was passed. The Assessing Officer determined the refund to be payable to the assessee at Rs.4,77,21,440/-.

5. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee is entitled to interest on unpaid interest. It was the submission before the ld.CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred while computing the interest u/s.244A of the Act in the impugned assessment year by submitting that the Assessing Officer computed the interest on unpaid interest vide order dated 21.11.2011 of Rs.1,68,94,740/- for a period from 01.04.1993 to 21.11.2011. The ld.AO submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the interest of Rs.1,68,94,740/- arose on delayed adjustment of refund of Rs.14,07,89,560/- representing TDS credit. Thus, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in separately computing interest on unpaid interest of Rs.1,68,94,740/- ignoring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.G. Ltd., reported in 324 ITR 331. Accordingly to the assessee the interest on unpaid interest becomes his part of the refund and the interest has to be computed accordingly. The ld CIY(A) after considering the contention of the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under :-

04. DECISION

1. I have carefully examined the impugned order u/s. 154/251/254/251/251/143(3) of the IT Act 1961, dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Ld. AO, and the submissions of the appellant- company. The only issue in the present appeal is the manner of calculation of interest u/s. 244A of the IT Act. This issue has been already decided be me in assessee's own case for the AY 2009-10 in Appeal No. 166/CIT(A)-22/Kol/15-16, being decided simultaneously. The Ld. AO is directed to follow the method of calculation of interest u/s. 244A as per the said order and draw up a fresh computation