COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. H V MIRCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT proposed for reference as many as five questions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has referred only two questions which according to it would cover the remaining three questions also. The two questions referred are as follows :

(2.) MR. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the Revenue, is not very much particular about getting the answers for the above questions. Obviously, he has not got much to say against the view taken by the Tribunal. The counsel, however, concentrated primarily on the maintainability of the appeal against the order of the ITO made under s. 154 of the Act and urged that such an appeal is not maintainable. In the circumstances, we rearrange the questions as follows :

(3.) THE assessee preferred an appeal against the order made under s. 154 contending that interest should have been allowed alongwith the refund granted. THE AAC did not allow the appeal. THEreupon, he preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. THE Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee. It was of the opinion that the assessee would be entitled to interest even if the refund is allowed upon rectification of the assessment order, since the rectification proceedings would be "other proceedings" as envisaged under s. 244(1A) of the Act. On the question as to the maintainability of the appeal, the Tribunal held as follows :