9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng upon the assessees to apply for refund the claim. Moreover, the contention of the learned standing counsel that the Chief Commissioner has no power to condone the delay and the assessees should have approached the Board cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation. Order of the Karnataka High Court in S. Thigarajan's case (2009 (8) TMI 531 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) followed. - 2161 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2011 - ELIPE DHARMA RAO, SUBBIAH R., JJ. JUDGMENT Elipe Dharma Rao J.- These writ appeals are filed against the order dated March 22, 2010, April 7, 2010, and March 12, 2010, passed by the learned single judge of this court in W. P. Nos. 4292, 6027 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Com- missioner of Income-tax, TDS, Bangalore, on October 7, 1999, for the fail- ure to deduct tax at source in respect of perquisite value of stock options allotted to its employees, who were covered by the Employees Stock Option Scheme, otherwise known as the ESOS of the company, his employer had paid the tax amount of Rs. 49,52,35,650 under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act along with interest of Rs. 4,82,85,475 under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, which was subsequently recovered by the employer from the respective employees. Hence, the respondent-writ petitioner filed revised returns though belatedly on January 11, 2003, but the same was not acted upon by the Assessing Officer. (ii) In the meanwhile, the empl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of delay petition, that once the deduction of tax at source was held to be not in accordance with law, the amount of tax recovered should have been refunded to the employer company along with interest and rejected the petition to condone the delay in filing the return and to grant refund to the respondent-employee. (iv) Challenging the same, the respondent-employee filed W. P. No. 4292 of 2010 before this court and the learned single judge, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated August 6, 2009, in W. P. No. 11044 of 2009 (since reported in S. Thigarajan v. Asst. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 581 (Karn)), quashed the order passed by the first respondent and directed the first respondent to refund the amount with interest payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the TDS amount with admissible interest by quashing the order passed by the authorities in the application filed by them for condonation of delay in seeking refund. The writ petitioners seek refund by placing reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in S. Thigarajan's case [2010] 322 ITR 581 (Karn) and the decision of this court, which is in challenge in the writ appeals. 7. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petitions by following the order of the Karnataka High Court in S. Thigarajan's case [2010] 322 ITR 581 (Karn). Though the learned standing counsel for the Revenue contends that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, we are not able to take a contra view. In the said case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
