9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the petitioner has claimed interest under section 132B(4) and section 244A of the Income-tax Act only. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. Search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the business and residential premises of the deceased on September 3, 1992. On September 4, 1992, during the said operation, cash of Rs. 1,68,298 was found and out of it, an amount of Rs. 1,60,000 was seized by the respondents. On December 24, 1992, order under section 132(5) determining provisionally total tax liability at Rs. 3,34,492 was passed and seized cash was appropriated till orders under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on regular assessment were passed. On March 16, 1995, order of regular asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself does not impose any obligation to pay interest upon the respondents. He further states that here the order of regular assess- ment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been passed on July 4, 1996, and because of the express language of section 244(3) of the Act, the petitioner was expected to apply for refund. The application for refund was moved on August 19, 1996, and then within a period of four months, i.e., on December 2, 1996, the amount has been refunded. In this situation, according to him, the prayer for interest as made is not coun- tenanced by any of the provisions. 6. Shri Parchure, learned counsel, has also contended that section 132(5)(iii) speaks of "existing liability" and, according to him, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his judgment, calcu- lating the amount of tax on that income, determining the amount of inter- est and the amount of penalty imposable. Lastly, the order also has to specify the amount that may be required to satisfy any existing liability under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and any one or more of the Acts specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 230A in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in default. Section 230A has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from June 1, 2001. It imposed restrictions on registration of transfer of immovable properties in certain cases. Its sub-section (1)(a) contained a reference to the Income-tax Act itself and also to other enactments like the Excess Profits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel and his interpretation of "existing liability is to be accepted, it is apparent that this scheme of aggregating" the amounts under all the three heads would be rendered absurd. In that event, the amounts calculated under section 132(5)(ii) and (iia) will stand added twice. This also can be ascer- tained from the fact that liability incurred under the provisions of the other enactments is also intended to be covered by the word "existing liability". Thus, the words "existing liability" under clause (iii) envisage an independent liability which has got nothing to do with search and seizure operation under section 132. Such liability is already saddled on the asses- see because of some other proceedings either under the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by ignoring that scheme. 11. Sub-section (4)(a) of section 132B directs the Central Government to pay simple interest at 15 per cent. per annum and under clause (b) that interest runs from the date immediately following the expiry of period of six months from the date of order under section 132(5) till the date of regular assessment or then till the date of the last of such assessments. Here, the order under section 132(5) has been admittedly passed on December 24, 1992, and the period of six months expired on June 24, 1993. The order of regular assessment under section 143(3) was passed on March 16, 1995, but then it has been modified in appeal on July 4, 1996. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondents have to pay interest from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly in cash by the petitioner in May, 1995, is irrelevant for the said pur- pose. The petitioner also has not claimed any refund of excess tax paid by him as his tax liability was later on reduced. He has also not made any demand for interest upon that excess tax amount paid by him and no such arguments were advanced. 12. Section 244A on which the petitioner has placed reliance is a general provision which deals with interest on refunds. It states that whether the refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under the Income-tax Act, he is entitled to receive the said amount with simple interest upon it calculated at 1 per cent. for every month or part of months comprised in the period or periods from the date of payment of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
