2000 (7) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notice issued u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the Assessing Officer's actions under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS).
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest on refunds under sections 244 and 244A of the Act.

Summary:

1. Legality of the notice issued u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner, a private limited investment company, challenged the notice dated April 7, 1999, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice sought to set aside the assessments made by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment years 1987-88, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95, on the grounds that they were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

2. Justification of the Assessing Officer's actions under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS):
The petitioner filed a declaration under the VDIS in 1997, declaring additional income and seeking to use refunds arising from set-aside assessments to pay taxes under the VDIS. The Assessing Officer completed reassessments on February 24, 1998, considering the VDIS declaration, and issued refunds. However, the Commissioner argued that the Assessing Officer should have merely quantified the refundable amount and paid it to the Reserve Bank of India on behalf of the petitioner, instead of passing assessment orders.

3. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest on refunds under sections 244 and 244A of the Act:
The petitioner claimed interest on the refunds determined due to them, but the Department did not respond to their application u/s 154 of the Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the Department to decide the application within two weeks. Instead, the Department issued a notice u/s 263 to reopen the assessments.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1 - Legality of the notice issued u/s 263:
The court held that the conditions precedent for exercising powers u/s 263, namely, the assessment orders being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, were not met. The notice was issued without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Issue 2 - Justification of the Assessing Officer's actions:
The court found that the Assessing Officer's actions were not in strict accordance with the provisions of the VDIS, as the tax was not paid at the time of passing the assessment orders. However, the court noted that the declaration under the VDIS was ultimately accepted, and the necessary credit for the income declared could not be denied after the issuance of the certificate u/s 68(2) of the VDIS.

Issue 3 - Entitlement to interest on refunds:
The court directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the petitioner's application for interest on the refund granted, in accordance with the law, within six weeks. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for interest and that the respondents could take appropriate proceedings if the tax credit was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, the impugned notice was quashed, and the rule was made absolute. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for interest on the refund within six weeks. The court left the parties to bear their own costs.