1 ITXA 4167 OF 2009 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4167 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Mumbai : Appellant. Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. : Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Ms. A Vessanje a/w Mr. S J Mehta for the Respondent CORAM : J P DEVADHAR AND R M SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 29th NOVEMBER 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused Appeal. 2 The question of law framed by the Revenue in this case reads thus :- “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 234D of the Income Tax Act could not be applied retrospectively for Assessment Years prior to A/y 2004-2005 even though the Assessment Order u/s. 143 read with section 147 levying Interest u/s 234D of the Income- tax Act for Assessment Year 1999-2000 was framed after 01-06-2003 and Interest levied u/s 234D pertained to the period 01-01-2001 to 28-02-2005? In this case, pursuant to the order passed under Section 143(1)(a) as well as the order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee was entitled to refund and refund was accordingly granted. Thereafter assessment has been reversed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 7th February 2002, as a result, the assessee became liable to return the amount of refund received pursuant to orders under section 143(1)(a) & 154 of the Act. 2 ITXA 4167 OF 2009 3 The question is, whether the interest is payable under Section 234D of the Income Tax on the amount which is liable to be refunded pursuant to the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Section 234D of the Income Tax Act was introduced by the Finance Act 2003 with effect from 1st June 2003. Since the order under section 143(3) was passed on 7th February 2002 i.e. prior to section 234D came into force, in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Tribunal that the provisions of section 234 D of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, cannot be faulted. 4 Accordingly, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [J P DEVADHAR, J]