Judgment K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, Chennai, dated 37. 2008 passed in M.P.No.177/Mds/2008 in ITA No.1049/Mds/2007 relating to the assessment year 20022003. 2. The material facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are stated below:- The assessment of assessee Company for the assessment year 2002-03 was completed on 12. 2005 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, computing the total income at Rs.3,93,77,211/-The assessing officer also levied interest of Rs.6,86,715, Rs.19,89,45/- and Rs.78,246/-respectively, under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The assessing officer had not deducted MAT credit before levying interest under the said sections. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who following the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Limited Vs. DCIT, (2004) 83 TTJ (Chennai) 427 directed the assessing officer to give the MAT credit before charging interest under Sections 234A, 243B and 2423C of the Act. There were other additions in the assessment, which were also the subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal while disposing of the appeal by order in ITA No.1049 /Mds/2007 dated 11. 2008 had not considered the revenues grounds of appeal relating to the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the assessing officer to allow MAT credit prior to levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C. Hence the revenue filed a Miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal for consideration of those grounds. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order dated 37. 2008 in M.P.No.177/Mds/2008 dealing with the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue on the issue of MAT credit. The Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee following its earlier order in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Limited and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, 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 MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source? Aggrieved by the same, 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 MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source? 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. 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. 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 this appeal are identical to the one considered by the Division Bench. Therefore, following the Division Bench Judgment stated supra, the appeal is dismissed since the questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee.