Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above six income-tax appeals referred to by the Revenue. For the purposes of brevity, we are referring to the facts as stated in IT Appeal No. 167 of 2005.
2. According to the appellant, following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal for adjudication by this Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :
'(a.) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in granting the interest under Section 244(1A) of the IT Act to the assessed from 28th March, 1988 to the date of adjustment, i.e., 25th July, 1991 and thereafter again from 28th March, 1988 to the date of grant of refund on the principal sum ?
(b) Whether Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Sections. 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of the IT Act ?'
3. The assessed filed his return for the asst. yr. 1987-88 on 31st July, 1987. A sum of Rs. 3,23,68,834 was paid as self-assessment tax on 12th Sept., 1987. The assessment was made under Section 143(3) on 28th March, 1988, whereby the assessing authority found that assessed was entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,03,29,841 for that year and it is alleged to have been adjusted against the demand for the year 1986-87.
4. The assessed filed two applications dt. 7th Sept., 1998 and 22nd Sept., 1998, for allowing interest in respect of the tax amount which was ordered to be refunded. This request of the assessed was examined by the AO and it was stated by the ITO that there was no provision under the IT Act which allows interest on refund relating to excess payment of self-assessment tax from the date of its payment to the date completing the regular assessment and thus, the application was rejected. In relation to the refund of Rs. 2,03,29,841, the assessed was allowed further refund of Rs. 1,20,72,447. Thus, refund was also adjusted for the demand for the year 1988-89. While relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT and Anr. : [1995]216ITR759(SC) , interest was allowed to the assessed under Section 244(1A) and was computed to the extent of Rs. 57,18,478.
5. This order of the Dy. CIT dt. 26th Oct., 1998, was challenged by the assessed before the CIT, who further granted partial relief to the assessed and held as under :
'However, where the liability to be assessed and/or to pay interest is not totally denied by the assessed, objection to the imposition of interest will unnecessarily be an objection either as to computation or as to the method or manner of imposition of interest. thereforee, such objections cannot be agitated by the assessed in an appeal. It has also been held in the case of Princess Usha Trust v. CIT : [1989]176ITR227(MP) that levy of interest is not a part of the process of assessment. thereforee, by denying the liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Act, the assessed cannot be held to be denying its liability to be assessed under the Act. It was further held that Section 246(1)(c) [now Section 246(1)(a)] cannot be held to be attracted. In the instant case, the dispute merely relates as to whether the interest is to be charged under Section 220(2) for a period of four months or six months. This cannot be a ground of appeal nor an appeal is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 246 and also the above discussion.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed.'
6. The order of the first appellate authority was challenged by the Jt. CIT, Special Range-V, New Delhi, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal stated that in their opinion, the entire amount due to be refunded to the assessed was not adjusted and thus, the refund was made in part only. It also held that there was no reason as to why on such facts, it would be assumed that the principal amount of refund stood adjusted and interest under Section 244(1A) remained unpaid. They further allowed interest to the assessed for the period after 25th July, 1991 and restricted to refundable amount refunded to the assessed as on that date and declined to interfere in the orders passed by the CIT(A). It is this order of the Tribunal, the legality and correctness of which is challenged in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act and on the questions of law afore-referred.
7. The main grievance of the Revenue is that the Tribunal has erred in law in awarding interest to the assessed for the period subsequent to 27th July, 1991, till the date of the refund. It ought not to have granted any interest as the amounts stood adjusted on 25th July, 1991.
8. Under Section 244A, an assessed, where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessed, shall, subject to the provisions of the section, be entitled to receive in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the manner specified in the section. Proviso to Section 244(1A) provides a restriction and states that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than 10 per cent of the tax as determined under Section 143(1) on regular assessment. In terms of Section 245, the AO is entitled to set off refund against tax remaining payable in terms of that provision. Entitlement of an assessed to refund is regulated under the provisions of Section 237 of the Act which jain is qualified by the limitations provided under Section 239 to Section 240. The scheme of these provisions which obviously has to be read and construed conjunctively shows that an assessed would be entitled to refund upon passing of an order of assessment and/or even the order of the appellate authority. In such circumstances, he will also be entitled to claim interest in terms of Section 244 of the Act, subject to satisfaction of the conditions stipulated therein. The contention of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that unless an order of assessment is made again by the AO, the assessed would be entitled to know (no) interest under any circumstances, hardly has any merit. It was contended that interest under Section 244(1A) of the Act was justifiable first/simultaneously against the demand of the assessed for the asst. yr. 1988-89 and then the principal amount and the refund of tax found in excess and the assessed was entitled to interest up to the date as the amount remained with the Revenue for all this period. Upon filing of the application by the assessed under Section 154 of the Act, it was claimed that interest in respect of tax paid by the assessed on different dates which are subsequently found refundable in its entirety. The appellate authority while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Industries' case (supra) correctly arrived at the conclusion that interest is to be allowed to the assessed under Section 244(1A) on 'tax refundable' as a result of any appeal or any order till the granting of the refund excluding the period of one month. On facts, the finding recorded by the Tribunal are final and in any case they cannot be stated to be perverse on any ground. As far as application of law is concerned, the authorities have correctly applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries (supra). Thus we find no infirmity in the concurrent view taken by the appellate authorities.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. Reference' in this regard can also be made to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. S.R. Fragrances Ltd. : [2004]270ITR560(Delhi) . Resultantly, all the above appeals are dismissed.