COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BISWANATH PASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dt. 15th Dec., 2000 passed by the learned Tribunal holding that an appeal lies against an order refusing to grant interest under s. 244(1A) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently, the learned Tribunal directed the AO to allow the amount of interest to the assessee in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in appeal.

(2.) Mr. Dutt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the sole question for determination is whether an appeal lies against an order refusing to grant interest under s. 244(1A) of the Act. He drew out attention to s. 246 of the Act. The case before us relates to the asst. yr. 1986-87. He submitted that an order passed under s. 237 of the Act refusing to pass an order granting refund is appealable but an order refusing to grant interest under s. 244(1A) of the Act is not appealable. He contended that appeal is a statutory remedy. Unless the statute provides for such a remedy, an appeal cannot be entertained. He added that the learned Tribunal erred in proceeding on the basis that the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., 1999 236 ITR 524(Mad.) holding that such an appeal is maintainable and another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.C. Shah & Anr, 1982 137 ITR 287(Bom.) wherein an identical view was taken, were not disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation & Anr., 1995 212 ITR 404 (SC). He drew our attention to the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Chittoor Electric Supply Corporation & Anr. . He read out the following para:

(3.) He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear that their Lordships did not consider the question as regards s. 244(1A) of the Act. He, therefore, contended that the learned Tribunal was evidently mistaken in proceeding on the basis that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not disapprove the views taken by the Madras High Court or the Bombay High Court whereas the fact is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not even consider the matter.