(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.) The appeals in T.C.(A) Nos.1090 to 1092 of 2007 have been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 28.7.2006 passed in ITA Nos.1245, 1246 and 1247/Mds/2005 respectively.
2. As the issue involved in all the appeals is one and the same, the material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal in T.C.(A) No.1090 of 2007 are stated below:-
The assessing officer while proceeding under
Section 154 granted MAT credit after calculating the interest under
Section 234B and C as against the claim oft he assessee that cognizance of the MAT credit should betaken prior to calculation of the interest under
Section 234B. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal following the decision of the Tribunal in Chemplast Sanmar Limited. The revenue filed Second Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which following its own order in the case of Chemplast Sanmar held that the assessee is entitled to adjust the MAT credit first before charging of interest under
Section 234B and
234C and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the the revenue has filed this appeal by formulating the following questions of law:
"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source and advance tax paid?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Mat credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the Scheme of Schedule G of Form 1?
3. Whether the interest under
Section 234B and
234C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation?
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
4. The very same issues have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009 and the Division Bench has answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by observing as follows:
"7.In respect of the first question of law, the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side are the same as the one advanced before the Delhi High Court cited supra. The Delhi High Court has considered the relevant provisions and dealt with the matter in detail and held that the credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging of interest under
Section 234A,234B and
234C of the Act. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue has not produced any materials or given compelling reasons to take a contrary view with that of the Delhi High Court. In such circumstances, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
......
18. In the present case, the intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest. Once the intention is clear, the revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say that the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given only after tax and interest. Further we have answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee i.e. the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging the interest under
Section 234B and
234C. Rule 12(1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, we answer the questions 2 and 3 also in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue."
5. The questions of law in these appeals are identical to the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench Judgment stated supra, the appeals are dismissed since the questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee.
(K.R.P.,J.) (M.M.S.,J.) 20.04.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes usk To
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Coimbatore
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai.
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.
And M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
usk T.C.(A)Nos.1090 to 1092 of 2007 20.04.2009