9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it fit to return the money. Therefore, in our case this is nothing but a clear case of high handedness on the part of the officers of the Revenue. This is a fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and particularly after 25th September 2014 and in any case after 31st December 2019 and most certainly after the Petition was filed and because of their inaction, Petitioner was made to suffer both financially and mentally. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was to be refunded to Petitioner when the order dated 25th September 2014 passed by the ITAT attained finality. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Prime Minister s office and to Hon ble Minister for Finance for perusal and further appropriate action against erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. According to the computation of income tendered by Mr. Sharma, interest amount payable was Rs. 5,50,983/-. The Interest as on 24th September 2014 payable was Rs. 4,10,583/-. Any amount that is payable to Petitioner in excess of Rs. 4,10,58 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Jethmal jain. It is Petitioner s case that even prior to PCIT passing this order, innumerable applications/communications have been made to which there was not even a response. The seized gold were handed over but the cash of Rs. 2,60,000/- was not returned. Hence, the Petition came to be filed. 3. Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Revenue to return the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- together with interest for pre-assessment period as well as post-assessment period until the date of payment. 4. On 3rd January 2023, time was sought by Revenue s Counsel to file an affidavit-in-reply. Six weeks were granted. On 25th April 2023 further period of six weeks was granted. On 5th September 2023 again no affidavit-in-reply had been filed and matter was stood over to 12th September 2023. 5. An affidavit-in-reply of one Shambhu Narayan Ranjan, Income Tax Officer affirmed on 12th September 2023 is filed. According to the affiant, the case pertains to a period when the records were maintained manually and as per the current practice processing of refund is done by system maintained by system and a manual order for processing refund of the principal amount and interest thereon has been passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and does not apply to amounts to be returned as against return of seized amounts under Section 132A of the Act. He further stated that Petitioner has admitted in the Petition that Petitioner s case is covered under Section 132B(4) and not 244A and, therefore, today Mr. Porwal cannot improvise on his case and seek more interest or the additional 3% interest under Sub-section (1A) of Section 244A. 8. We do not agree with Mr. Sharma because in the Petition itself Petitioner has stated that Petitioner is also entitled to interest during the period 25th September, 2014 to the date of actual payment during the post-assessment period; that there is inordinate delay in releasing the seized cash of Rs. 2,60,000/- which till date has not been released although more than seven (now 9 plus) years have already expired since the time Tribunal passed the order in favour of Petitioner on 24th September, 2014, Petitioner approaches this Hon ble Court to direct the Revenue to pay interest @ 12% on account of inordinate delay in releasing the seized cash of Rs. 2,60,000/- from 25th September, 2014 to the date of actual payment; In respect of post- assessment period, i.e., from the day next f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;. Paragraphs 32 to 40 read as under: 32. There is no doubt that the said section 132B(4)(b) provides that, interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under section 153A or under Chapter XIV-B. In our view the said provision does not indicate any bar from awarding payment of interest or compensation in a situation where Court finds any delay on the part of the revenue in releasing the amount within time specifically prescribed under the provisions of law for no fault of the assessee. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) while dealing with the claim for payment of interest under section 214 of the Act, 1961 made by the petitioner whether there was gross delay on the part of the revenue ranging from 12 to 17 years held that, there is no question of the delay being justifiable as is argued and in any event if the revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Delhi High Court in the said judgment. 38. The Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain (supra) after adverting to its earlier judgment in case of Ajay Gupta (supra) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) has held that there is no justification in refusing to pay compensation/damages for the delay caused by the respondents revenue in releasing the payment within the time prescribed due and payable to the petitioners and such interpretation cannot be accepted which would devoid the rights of the assessee. The Delhi High Court accordingly directed the revenue to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the balance amount for the subsequent period i.e. from the date of assessment order till the payment. In our view, the said judgment also would apply to the facts of this case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain (supra). 39. Insofar as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in a case of Dilip Kumar Co. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the revenue is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment had considered the question as to what interp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaction, Petitioner was made to suffer both financially and mentally. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was to be refunded to Petitioner when the order dated 25th September 2014 passed by the ITAT attained finality. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Prime Minister s office and to Hon ble Minister for Finance for perusal and further appropriate action against erring officials on whose lethargic and adamant attitude the Department has to suffer financially. According to the computation of income tendered by Mr. Sharma, interest amount payable was Rs. 5,50,983/-. The Interest as on 24th September 2014 payable was Rs. 4,10,583/-. Any amount that is payable to Petitioner in excess of Rs. 4,10,583/- towards interest may be recovered from the erring officials together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. by the Government of India. 12. Petitioner, therefore, will be entitled to interest at 12% p.a. for the post-assessment period, i.e., from 25th September 2014 until payment/realization. This amount shall be processed and the amount shall be credited to Petitioner s account within two weeks of this order being uploaded. Failure to comply, Petitioner is at liberty to approac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
