2025 (2) TMI 1042 - HC - Income Tax

Application moved seeking a refund of an amount erroneously directed to be refunded to the petitioner along with interest - applicant/respondent/contemnor said that the amount which was attached by the respondent has been erroneously directed to be refunded to the petitioner along with payment of interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of seizure till its realization within six weeks thereof. HELD THAT - The interest would be payable after the expiry of the initial 120 days from the date on which the authorization u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act or the requisition u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act was executed. Thus pursuant to the notice issued to the non-applicant/petitioner today a cheque mcontaining the income tax refund order has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner towards the interest which has been calculated in terms of the aforesaid discussion. The same is accepted unconditionally. The copy of the said cheque is taken on record. Petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the worthy Registrar General Delhi High Court for refund of the principal amount which already stands deposited with this Court.

Summary

The Delhi High Court considered an application moved by the respondent seeking a refund of an amount erroneously directed to be refunded to the petitioner along with interest. The respondent argued that the amount attached by the respondent should not have been refunded. The court examined Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which outlines the application of seized assets. The court noted that interest would be payable after the initial 120 days from the date of authorization under sections 132 or 132A of the Income Tax Act.The court ordered the refund of the interest amount to the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to approach the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court for the refund of the principal amount deposited with the court. The contempt petition related to the matter was disposed of as satisfied.In summary, the court considered the provisions of the Income Tax Act and ordered the refund of the interest amount to the petitioner, allowing further action for the refund of the principal amount. The contempt petition was also disposed of as satisfied.