2013 (12) TMI 312 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - Whether or not, there was a delay in the proceedings and to whom is such delay is attributable is a question of fact, requiring investigation - The investigation of the cause for the delay would itself make it a debatable issue as both the respondent-assessee and the Revenue would have different perspective on the same - Following T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court - A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there could be two possible opinions - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement to interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Delay in finalization of proceedings resulting in refund.
4. Exclusion of delay attributable to the assessee from the period for which interest is payable.

Analysis:

1. Rectification Proceedings under Section 154:
The main issue in this case revolved around the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the delay in finalization of proceedings was not a debatable issue, especially after the communication from the Commissioner of Income-tax directing the Assessing Officer not to allow interest under section 244A. However, the Tribunal held that the question of delay and its attribution is a factual matter that requires investigation. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification proceedings were not warranted as the delay issue was debatable, with different perspectives from both the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of T. S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, where it was established that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent, not requiring lengthy reasoning with differing opinions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.

2. Entitlement to Interest under Section 244A:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the assessee's entitlement to interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the refund arose from appellate proceedings, and no delay in those proceedings was attributed to the assessee by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund amount.

3. Delay in Finalization of Proceedings Resulting in Refund:
Another issue raised was the delay in finalization of proceedings resulting in a refund. The Tribunal considered whether the interest was due to the assessee even for the period before a claim of refund was made. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and the nature of the delay, ultimately concluding that the delay issue was debatable and required further investigation.

4. Exclusion of Delay Attributable to the Assessee from Interest Calculation:
The Tribunal also examined whether the delay attributable to the assessee should be excluded from the period for which interest is payable. The Tribunal highlighted that the question of responsibility for the delay in granting the refund became academic once it was established that the rectification proceedings were not maintainable. Therefore, the issues related to the exclusion of delay attributable to the assessee did not require further consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the rectification proceedings were not justified, and the issues related to delay and interest entitlement were debatable and required detailed investigation, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee on these matters.