Acit, Circle-1(1), Baroda () v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Baroda ().

Shri T.K Sharma, J.M:— This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order dated 23-01-2009 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda for the assessment year 2003-2004.

2. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to grant interest U/s. 244A on Rs. 31,29,230/- being refund arising out MAT credit availed pertained to earlier year without appreciating the fact that as per proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115JAA that no interest shall be payable on the tax credit allowed under sub section (1) of section 115JAA.”

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the AO allowed the appeal effect under section 143(3) r.w.s 250 vide order dated 30.03.2007 wherein refund was determined at Rs. 31,29,230/-. This refund was duly granted to the assessee. However, the assessee's claim of interest under section 244A was rejected on the ground that interest was not payable in respect of MAT paid earlier.

4. On appeal, in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Pudumjee Paper Mills Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 118 TTJ 280, held that interest would be payable under section 244A on interest charged and paid under section 234D. The ld. CIT(A), keeping in view the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pudumjee Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Hon'Ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported in 200 CTR 505 (SC), held that the assessee is entitled to interest on refund arising out of MAT credit. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. At the outset, on behalf of the Assessee, Shri S.N Soparkar, A.R appeared and pointed out that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely applicable by the decision dated 21.08.2009 of the ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1531.A/2009 for the assessment year 2002-2003.

6. On the other hand, Shri S.K Meena, Sr. D.R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee.

7. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pudumjee Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1999-2000 and in the assessment year 2003-2004 also, the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.08.2009 in the case of DCIT v. Alembic Limited (supra), decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Since, in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1999-2000, we, therefore, incline to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A).

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.