9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act and on general principles petitioner ought to be compensated for such deprivation. Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 43,65,587/- together with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. from 27th October 2009 till the date of payment and this amount shall be paid on or before 28th July 2024 as against 6% that the Act provides. The difference of 2%, i.e., (8% - 6%), shall be recovered from the officers responsible for not acting on the letter dated 27th October 2009. Petition disposed off. - K. R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vinay Ansurkar i/b Mr. Ashok Singh. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B Mishra a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra. P.C. : 1. The short point in the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he details of this matter. 3. In Vinoda B. Jain v Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and Ors (2024) 462 ITR 58, the Court was dealing with a similar case under the Income Tax Act, 1961 where the Revenue had delayed the release of refund to petitioner. The Court held that an assessee cannot be deprived of its justifiable money. Such an inaction on part of the Revenue is certainly contrary to the provisions of the Act and on general principles petitioner ought to be compensated for such deprivation. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Vinoda Jain (supra) read as under: 10. One thing is certain and it cannot be denied that Petitioner is deprived of its justifiable money of Rs. 2,60,000/- from 25th September 2014 solely due to the inaction of the Revenue. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar to the case at hand, were entitled to compensation'. 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 prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statutory provisions of law. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. 36. In our view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. The respondents were solely responsible for the gross delay in not releasing the cash amount of the petitioners under section 132B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961 and thus cannot refuse the payment of compensation to the petitioners for wrongfully withholding the said amount from the date of assessment order till payment. 37. Delhi High Court in a case of Ajay Gupta (supra) has held that, since the payment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 interpretative rule to be applied while interpreting a tax exemption provision/notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability with reference to the entitlement of the assessee or the rate of tax to be applied. In paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, when the words in statute are clear, plain an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Revenue, still the Revenue did not consider 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. 4 Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 43,65,587/- together with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. from 27th October 2009 till the date of payment and this amount shall be paid on or before 28th July 2024 as against 6% that the Act provides. The difference of 2%, i.e., (8% - 6%), shall be recovered from the officers responsible for not acting on the letter dated 27th October 2009. It will also be useful to reproduce paragraph 7 of the said letter dated 27th October 2009, which reads as under: 7. Hence, it is urged that the matter of refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
