JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.-Admit. following question of law has been urged: "Whether, in facts and in circumstances of case, assessee was entitled to any amount for delayed payment of interest under section 244A on principal refund amount claimed by it?" assessee's returns for years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were processed under section 143(1). It is admitted case of parties that requisite advance tax payments were completed within time specified, i.e., April 1, 1997, and July 1, 1998. assessments were, thereafter, framed under section 143(1) and adjustment of tax was made for years 1997-98 on June 30, 1998, and for years 1998-99, on March 19, 1999. assessee was aggrieved and claimed that apart from refund of that there was delay in payment of interest which worked out to Rs. 2,55,19,914, for two assessment years in terms of section 244A, at rates prescribed during that period. Assessing Officer had denied amount but assessee's appeal was partly allowed and refunds claimed were partly adjusted for future years. assessee's appeal to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal succeeded. Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3398 and 3399/Del/2011 by its impugned order dated January 20, 2012, held that amounts were payable towards delayed payment of interest. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal discussed facts in following terms: "5. In this case, refund of Rs. 10,38,32,977 has been determined by Assessing Officer. No interest has been granted under section 244A, though tax and interest payable on returned income was computed at Rs. 26,87,16,819 as against pre-paid taxes of Rs. 37,25,49,796 including advance tax of Rs. 24,64,00,000. Moreover, refund of Rs. 10,38,32,977 has been fully adjusted against demand for assessment year 1996-97, vide voucher dated March 19, 1999. assessee filed application under section 154 dated July 18, 2001, seeking grant of interest under section 244A for period April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1999, that is, up to month in which refund was adjusted. However, application under section 154 has been rejected, on account of being barred by limitation. It was held that no order under section 154 could be passed after expiry of four years from end of year in which order sought to be amended was passed. 6. Upon assessee's appeal in this regard learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that he agreed with assessee that interest under section 244A should have been granted by Assessing Officer, for which there was no requirement in law for assessee to claim interest. learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) further observed that assessee has also sought that it be granted interest on delayed payment of interest, relying on apex court judgment in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC). learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that said decision is distinguishable from facts of present case. Ultimately, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that interest of justice would be met by granting interest under section 244A up to date of adjustment of refund and declined to order granting of interest on interest." Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon decision of Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC) and held that in its opinion assessee was entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest and upheld assessee's contentions as follows: "10. We find that hon'ble apex court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643 (SC) had held that'the assessee was entitled to compensation by way of interest under section 214 and section 244 for delay in payment interest under section 214 and section 244 lawfully due to assessee which were withheld wrongly and contrary to law by Department for inordinate long period'. In our considered opinion, ratio from this case law is rightly applicable on facts of case. abovesaid Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 2 of 2007, dated March 28, 2007, is also germane in this regard. Hence, in our considered opinion, assessee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest and, accordingly, assessee's appeal is allowed." Revenue contends that reliance placed upon Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) is erroneous. It is submitted on its behalf that Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) was delivered in respect of facts prior to insertion of section 244A and that courts are duty bound to correctly interpret that provision. It was emphasised that plain text of section 244A does not provide for construction which entitles assessee aggrieved by delayed payment of principal to any amount over and above interest directed by section 244A(1) itself. learned counsel placed reliance upon decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [2013] 358 ITR 291 (SC). In that judgment, court noticed Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) and held pertinently as follows (page 294): "As we have already noticed, in Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) this court was considering issue whether assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for great prejudice caused to it due to delay in its payment after lapse of statutory period. In facts of that case, this court had come to conclusion that there was inordinate delay on part of Revenue in refunding certain amount which included statutory interest and, therefore, directed Revenue to pay compensation for same not interest on interest. Further, it is brought to our notice that Legislature by Act No. 4 of 1988 (with effect from April 1, 1989) has inserted section 244A to Act which provides for interest on refunds under various contingencies. We clarify that it is only that interest provided for under statute which may be claimed by assessee from Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest." Learned counsel for assessee contends that impugned order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought not to be disturbed. It is, firstly, argued that refund sought was only in respect of interest payable and not any amount over and above it. It was next contended that decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. H. E. G. Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 331 (SC) supports view adopted by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. learned counsel also stated that Division Bench of this court had followed H. E. G. Ltd. (supra), in India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646 (Delhi). In India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) it was held, after consideration of H. E. G. Ltd. (supra), that (page 656 of 361 ITR) : "A reading of aforesaid passage from decision of Supreme Court in H. E. G. Ltd. (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by Supreme Court is that when refund order is issued, same should include interest payable on amount, which is refunded. If refund does not include interest due and payable on amount refunded, Revenue would be liable to pay interest on shortfall. This does not amount to payment of interest on interest. example will clarify situation and help us to understand what is due and payable under section 244A of Act. Suppose Revenue is liable to refund Rs. 1 lakh to assessee with effect from April 1, 2010, said amount is refunded along with interest due and payable under section 244A on March 31, 2013, then no further interest is payable. However, if only Rs. 1 lakh is refunded by Revenue on March 31, 2013, and interest accrued on Rs.1 lakh under section 244A is not refunded, Revenue would be liable to pay interest on amount due and payable but not refunded. Interest will not be due and payable on amount refunded but only on amount which remains unpaid, i.e, interest element, which should have been refunded but is not paid. In another situation where part payment is made, section 244A would be still applicable in same manner. For example, if Rs. 60,000 was paid on 31st March, 2013, Revenue would be liable to pay interest on Rs. 1 lakh from April 1, 2010, till March 31, 2013, and thereafter on Rs. 40,000. Further, interest payable on Rs. 60,000, which stands paid, will be quantified on March 31, 2013, and on this amount, i.e., interest amount quantified, Revenue would be liable to pay interest under section 244A till payment is made." Section 244A(1) of Income-tax Act reads as follows: "244A. Interest on refunds.-(1) Where refund of any amount becomes due to assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in following manner, namely:- (a) where refund is out of any tax paid under section 115WJ or collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during financial year immediately preceding assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at rate of one-half per cent. for every month or part of month comprised in period from 1st day of April of assessment year to date on which refund is granted: Provided that no interest shall be payable if amount of refund is less than ten per cent. of tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 115WE or sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment; (b) in any other case, such interest shall be calculated at rate of one- half per cent. for every month or part of month comprised in period or periods from date or, as case may be, dates of payment of tax or penalty to date on which refund is granted. Explanation.-For purposes of this clause,'date of payment of tax or penalty' means date on and from which amount of tax or penalty specified in notice of demand issued under section 156 is paid in excess of such demand." In Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), court, admittedly, was dealing with facts prior to insertion of section 244A. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for this court to consider that judgment now as binding authority. More importantly, Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) was explained by larger Bench, i.e., three-judge Bench decision in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) where Supreme Court categorically held that only amount which assessee aggrieved by delayed payment can legitimately claim under statute is interest and that "no other interest on such statutory interest" is payable. This ruling, in opinion of this court, rendered by larger Bench, would have to be followed as opposed to ratio in H. E. G. Ltd. (supra) where Supreme Court had expressed contrary opinion by indicating that interest component towards delayed payment of tax refund would partake of character of "amount of due" under section 244A. In other words, H. E. G. Ltd. seems to suggest that there would be dues on bar, refund and delayed interest. Clearly, that view has not been approved in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra). It was urged during hearing that India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) has become final since Revenue's appeal was withdrawn. This court is of opinion that such detail notwithstanding law declared in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (supra) is binding and permits no deviation. In light of above decision, it is held that impugned order to extent it directs payment of any sum over and above interest payable under section 244A(1) to assessee, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, matter is remitted to Assessing Officer for orders. In circumstances of case, question of law framed is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee in above terms. appeal is partly allowed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd