9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in not allowing interest under section 244 on the entire amount of refund irrespective of the fact that the information required by the Income-tax Officer for giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was furnished after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said section?" The basic facts of the matter are not in dispute. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. The assessee is a company. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on or about March 25, 1972, in terms whereof it was held that a sum of Rs.3,01,634 was still payable as income-tax. The said demand, however, later on was reduced to Rs.2,93,931 by reasons of two rectificatory orders dated May 11, 1972 and October 16, 1973. An appeal was preferred there against by the assessee and by a judgment dated October 30, 1975, the appeal was allowed in terms whereof the assessee obtained relief to the extent of Rs.3,07,022. As regards the assessee's claim to relief under sections 80G and 80J of the said Act (a claim to development rebate), the appellate authority asked the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax figure could be calculated at that rate applicable to companies. It was only regarding the balance amount concerned involving relief under sections 80G and 80J and development rebate that further verification or investigation by the Income-tax Officer was necessary before effect could have been given to the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. So far as the said balance amount is concerned, we agree with the Income-tax Officer's finding that delay was attributable to the assessee itself. In this regard there is sufficient material available from the Income-tax Officer's order dated August 29, 1977, itself. Further a certain portion from that order has also been extracted by the Income-tax Officer while disposing of the assessee's petition headed section 154, Income-tax Act. In the result, we modify the learned Commissioner's order and hold that the assessee is entitled to interest for the period from February 1, 1976 to August 28, 1977, on that portion of the refund amount, which required no further investigation or verification at the Income-tax Officer level. As regards the balance claim of the assessee there was no mistake apparent from the record." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in section 240 and the Assessing Officer does not grant the refund within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed, the Central Government shall pay to the assessee simple interest at fifteen per cent. per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted. (1A) Where the whole or any part of the refund referred to in sub-section (1) is due to the assessee, as a result of any amount having been paid by him after the 31st day of March, 1975, in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty and such amount or any part thereof having been found in appeal or other proceeding under this Act to be in excess of the amount which such assessee is liable to pay as tax or penalty, as the case may be, under this Act, the Central Government shall pay to such assessee simple interest at the rate specified in sub-section (1) on the amount so found to be in excess from the date on which such amount was paid to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that where the amount so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces involved in each case. In a situation of this nature, the refund must be held to have become payable on August 29, 1977. Furthermore, it is true that interest is payable by way of recompense but a person cannot claim any compensation if he is the contributing factor for non-payment. A person cannot claim damages even under common law either by way of interest or otherwise, if the statutory order could not be passed owing to his own conduct. A person, as is well-known, cannot take advantage of his own wrong. If such claim is permitted, the same would not advance the cause of justice. In H.E.H. the Nizam's Miscellaneous Trust [1984] 150 ITR 423, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with a matter of refund under the Wealth-tax Act. In the facts of that case, it was held that the assessee was entitled to refund in terms of section 34A of the Wealth-tax Ad, 1957, in terms whereof such refund is liable to be paid as a result of the order passed in appeals including a rectification proceeding and, secondly, the amount has to be refunded to the assessee "without his having to make any claim in that behalf." In the instant case, the claim for refund did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
