9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 2-4-2013 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani, JJ For the Appellant : Mr R K Patel, Adv For the Respondent : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Adv JUDGEMENT:- Per : Akil Kureshi, J : Heard learned counsel for final disposal of the petition. Petitioner has challenged an Order dated 23rd June 2010 passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 220 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ Act for short].The petitioner has also challenged demand notice of Rs. 2,22,468/= towards interest, pursuant to impugned order dated 23rd June 2010. The petition arises in the following factual background. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and regularly assessed to tax. For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of SANDVIK ASIA LTD v. CIT, reported in as under : The Act recognizes the principle that a person should be taxed only in accordance with law and hence where excess amount of tax are collected from an assessee or any amount is wrongly withheld without authority of law, the revenue must compensate. It is, therefore requested to kindly process the return of income for A.Y 2008-09 and resultant refund may be adjusted against the demand for A.Y 2008-09 and the balance of the refund may please be issued to the assessee at your earliest. In the meantime, it is further requested that no coercive action for recovery of the demand may kindly be taken against the assessee when the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch period, the petitioner cannot be termed as an assessee in default. The petitioner therefore contends that the levy of interest on the principal sum of tax payable by the petitioner for a period of five months when the adjustment was not done, is illegal. On the other hand, case of the Department is that when the petitioner offered adjustment of the refund, his right to seek refund was not yet crystallized. The amount being substantial, needed proper verification of TDS certificates, etc. This was done while processing the petitioner s return for AY 2008-09. Interest was therefore rightly charged. Having thus heard learned counsel and having perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the respondents have correctly raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
