JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. 1. The appeal, at the instance of the assessee, seeks to challenge Annexure F order dated 28.03.2024 in ITA No.96/Coch/2024 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, upholding the refusal to extend interest on the refund eligible to it. 2. While filing its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 (financial year 2003-04), the appellant-assessee sought for a deduction of Rs.20,17,74,600/-, representing arrears of salary/wages to its employees for the period from 2001 to 2004. By Annexure A order dated 29.12.2006, the assessing authority processed the afore claim, refusing to extend the deduction sought for, recording as under:- “The objection is considered. The company follows mercantile system of accounting. The liability for this payment of wage arrears are not provided in the accounts for the year 31/03/2004. The Company says that the issue was in an advanced stage of negotiation. The Company could have provided for such a liability. If the wage revisions on the basis of Government orders, then such liability can be possibly considered on the basis of crystallisation of liability. In this case the liability was quantified in June 2004 ie. outside the previous year relevant to assessment year 2004-05. The claim cannot be allowed this year. It is relevant to mention that the liability towards wage revision amounting to 3.46 cores has been claimed by the assessee on the basis of Government order dated 23/04/2003 and has been allowed.” (Underlining supplied) The challenge to disallowance as above before the appellate authorities was unsuccessful, and when the matter was carried in appeal before this Court, by a judgment dated 08.06.2009 in ITA No.97 of 2009, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the disallowance and dismissed the appeal. However, this Court held that since the appellant was under the control of the Government of Kerala and since the Government granted approval for settlement with the employees only on 17.06.2024 - during the financial year 2004-05 – the claim is to be raised and allowed during the assessment year 2005-06. Hence, the appellant-assessee was permitted to move for rectification/other remedies so as to claim benefits subsequently. 3. On the afore basis, the appellant-assessee raised a claim for the assessment year 2005-06 through a rectification application. By Annexure C order dated 02.09.2010, the rectification application was acted upon and the assessment for the year 2005-06 was modified deducting an amount of Rs. 3. On the afore basis, the appellant-assessee raised a claim for the assessment year 2005-06 through a rectification application. By Annexure C order dated 02.09.2010, the rectification application was acted upon and the assessment for the year 2005-06 was modified deducting an amount of Rs. 20,17,74,600/- from the total income on account of which the appellant became entitled to certain refund – Rs.9,15,24,268/- after making some adjustments as regards certain dues of the appellant. On the afore amount of refund, the appellant was found entitled to interest for the period from September, 2009 (the month succeeding the month in which the application for rectification was filed) till October, 2010 (the month in which rectification was carried out). 4. Insofar as the interest was only granted as above, an appeal was preferred seeking the grant of interest from April, 2005 onwards, and the first appellate authority upheld the award of interest as above, however, issuing certain minor directions for statistical reasons. 5. The further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is rejected by the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, leading to the captioned appeal. 6. We have heard Sri.Sukm Sagar Syal, the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, and Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. The claim made by the appellant-assessee in the case at hand is processed under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Sub-section (2) thereof provides as under:- “(2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee or the deductor, as the case may be, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable under sub-section (1) or (1A) or (1B), and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final.” As regards the entitlement for refund under Section 244A of the Act, there is no dispute. The question for consideration is whether the provisions of sub-section (2) are applicable. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act provides for the exclusion of the period of delay attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part. The question for consideration is whether the provisions of sub-section (2) are applicable. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act provides for the exclusion of the period of delay attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part. The assessing authority, in the case at hand, has stated that the question of refund has arisen only pursuant to the judgment dated 08.06.2009 in ITA No.97 of 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court, on the basis of which, an application for rectification was presented during August, 2009. It is the sustainability or otherwise of the afore conclusion, that found favour with the appellate authorities, including the Appellate Tribunal, that arises for consideration herein. 9. As already noticed, for the assessment year 2005-06, originally in the return filed, there was no such claim made by the appellant-assessee. Instead, the appellant sought a deduction for the assessment year 2004-05. However, the claim was disallowed for the assessment year 2004-05 as early as on 29.12.2006. The assessing authority in Annexure A order for the assessment year 2004-05 has categorically found that the claim actually falls under the subsequent year. In other words, the assessee ought to have made amendments with respect to its return for 2005-06 at least with reference to that date. Instead of doing that, it challenged the assessment before the appellate authorities, and it is only pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench on 08.06.2009 in ITA No.97 of 2009 that the appellant-assessee chose to make an appropriate claim for the assessment year 2005-06. 10. True, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee contended that since it had challenged the assessment for the year 2004-05, it could not seek for the benefits during the later year. However, even in such a situation, in our opinion, the appellant- assessee could have raised a claim for the later year (2005-06) with specific reference to the observations in the assessment order for the year 2004-05; without prejudice to the contentions in the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05. However, the assessee has not chosen to avail the afore course of action. 11. We may also notice that the question of refund has arisen for the first time only in August, 2009, when the appellant-assessee sought for the benefits by instituting a rectification application. However, the assessee has not chosen to avail the afore course of action. 11. We may also notice that the question of refund has arisen for the first time only in August, 2009, when the appellant-assessee sought for the benefits by instituting a rectification application. Till such time, a consequential order is passed on the afore application, the retention of the tax which was later found to be paid in excess, was perfectly legal. For that reason also, we are of the opinion that the period excluded while calculating the interest eligibility of the appellant-assessee cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee also sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [ (2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker) ] in support of his contention. However, we notice that in the said case claim for refund was raised on the basis of a revised return filed on 10.01.2001, which was found to be in the course of assessment prior to the completion of assessment. This Court found that there was no delay on the part of the assessee, since the assessment proceedings were going on and the claim was made during such proceedings. But, in the case at hand, there is no dispute that the original return did not contain any such claim, and even when the assessment for the year 2005-06 was completed, this was never an issue arising for consideration. As already found, the claim arises for the first time only pursuant to the directions of this Court in the appeal against the assessment year 2004-05. Hence, the assessee would not be entitled to rely on the afore decision in support of its contentions. 13. On the whole, we are of the opinion that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal were in tune with the provisions of the Act, and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal would stand dismissed.