9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on refund u/s. 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act"). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: The only issue involved in this appeal is denial of interest on refund u/s 244A for a part of the statutorily eligible period. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on refund only for the period from 20-2-2018 to 13-3-2019, being the period commencing from the date on which the assessee preferred the rectification application to the Assessing Officer till the date on which the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order u/s 264 was passed, as this contrary to the provisions of sec 244A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Balbir Singh Maini[2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) held that if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. In other words, if the agreement/JDA was not registered as per law, in such an event, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. And the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court stating that in order to qualify as a 'transfer' of a capital asset u/s. 2(47)(v), there must be 'contract' which can be enforced in law u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. And a con-joint reading of relevant provisions read with section 17(1A) and section 49 of the Regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act and revised it as per the terms discussed in his order dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order u/s 264 on 13.09.2019, wherein he was pleased to refund the entire amount of Rs. 92,41,470/-. However, the assessee's prayer for interest u/s. 244A of the Act was not allowed by the AO by holding as under: 6. Interest u/s. 244A of the Act is not allowed since the assessee has originally filed 'Nil' return of income and only after cancellation of JDA on 22.02.2017 filed petition for rectification and claimed refund. Since the delay in claiming the refund is on the part of the assessee, the interest claimed by the assessee u/s. 244A is hereby rejected. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest u/s. 234B of the Act of Rs. 2,71,785/-(total amount of Rs. 92,41,470/-) was remitted, which is not disputed; and the RoI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC accepting the RoI on 03.06.2015. Since, the developer didn't act upon the unregistered JDA dated 29.11.2013 and backed out of it, the assessee cancelled the ibid JDA by executing cancellation deed dated 22.12.2017; and pursuant to it, filed an application before AO u/s. 154 of the Act, requesting for deleting the capital gains offered by it and claimed refund of the tax paid of Rs. 92,41,470/-, which was rejected by the AO vide order dated 20.07.2018. Pursuant thereto, the assessee preferred an application u/s. 264 of the Act before the Ld.PCIT who was pleased to al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) .............. (ii) ............... (aa) where the refund is out of any tax paid under section-140A, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period, from the date of furnishing of return of income or payment of tax, whichever is later, to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest under clause (a) or clause (aa) shall be payable, if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section-143 or on regular assessment; (b) .............. (1A) .......... (1B) ................... (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a narrow or pedantic view in the facts of the case. 9. In this case, it is to be noticed that the event which triggered capital gain was caused due to the assessee entering into JDA to develop its property on 29.11.2013 with the developer/builder. Since, the JDA/ agreement was not acted upon; and developer backed out and since, the JDA in question was not registered as per law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) i.e. un-registered JDA is not enforceable in law. And when we juxtapose this case law with the JDA in question, then there is no JDA in the eyes of law and therefore, is un-enforceable in law. Thus, it is noted that the assessee offered capital gain of Rs. 92,41,470/- upon mistake of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
