9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensation for the delayed payment of amounts that were due to him by way of refund of tax and interest thereon, the Supreme Court on the facts of that case, proceeded to grant the assessee an additional amount towards compensation for the period during which the Department had delayed the payment of refund, and interest thereon, to the assessee. The prayer in the original petition with regard to interest on interest cannot be granted - While the assessee would point out that, even if interest on interest was not granted, it was open to the Court to consider the issue of grant of appropriate compensation in lieu of interest on interest, insofar as the computation shown reveals that assessee has computed interest in accordance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.5.1979. The assessment was consequent to a search carried on in the premises of the petitioner, and an amount of ₹ 1,12,700/- had been seized from the petitioner on 20.9.1975 during the course of the search conducted by the authorities under the Central Excise Act. The said amount was subsequently transferred to the Income Tax authorities, who completed the assessment, under the Income Tax Act, on the petitioner. While completing the income tax assessment for the year 1976-77, the respondent adjusted the tax amount of ₹ 62,935/- from out of the amount seized from the petitioner at the time of search. A further amount of ₹ 46,800/- was also adjusted towards penalty that was imposed on the petitioner. The balance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the amount of refund that was due to him. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent in not granting interest on interest on the amounts due to him by way of refund. 4. In response to the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition, the respondent has filed statements before this Court in 2006 and 2008. In the statement filed in 2008, through I.A.No.11465/2008, a computation is provided as Ext.R1(A) which would show that as per the records of the respondent, after granting interest in accordance with Ext.P5 order, an amount of ₹ 1,91,066/- remained to be paid to the petitioner, as on 30th August, 2008, the date of the statement. The stand of the respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod during which the Department had delayed the payment of refund, and interest thereon, to the assessee. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals - [(2013) 358 ITR 291 (SC)]. In the said decision, while noting the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd.'s case [supra], and observing that in the said case, what the Supreme Court had done was to grant a compensation by way of interest to the assessee in that case, the Supreme Court went on to find in paragraph 8 as follows: 8. Further, it is brought to our notice that the Legislature by the Act No.4 of 1988 (with effect from A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for the entire period for which they had withheld the amounts due to the petitioner by way of refund, there is no scope for the issuance of a direction to grant a compensation over and above the statutory interest that has already been reckoned for the purposes of computation of the amounts due to the petitioner. Thus, the original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is some ambiguity with regard to whether the amounts found due and payable to the petitioner, as shown in Ext.R1(A) statement of the respondent, has in fact been paid to the petitioner or his legal representatives. Taking note of this submission, I direct the respondent to ascertain from its records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
