News Update

Bengaluru Customs nabs 4 pax with gold powder worth Rs 1.96 CroreKejriwal’s assistant put in police custody for 5 days in Swati Maliwal caseAllahabad HC upholds decision to dismiss judicial officer demanding dowryNawaz Sharif alleges former Chief Justice plotted to oust him as PM in 2017Heavy downpours claim 50 lives in Central AfghanistanSoaring funeral costs compelling people to let go bodies unclaimed in Canada9 pilgrims burnt to death as bus catches fire near Nuh in HaryanaSpain denies dock permission to Indian ship carrying arms to Israel12 Unicorns, over 125 startups commit to onboarding ONDCBEML secures Rs 250 crore order from Northern Coal FieldsBharat Parv celebration takes centerstage at Cannes Film FestivalSteel industry should work towards reducing emissions: Steel SecretaryI-T - Additions framed on account of unexplained cash credit & unexplained money, are not tenable where cash deposits & withdrawals were of personal funds & were done through banking channels: ITATUS says not too many vibrant democracies in the world than IndiaI-T - Benefit of section 11(2) can not be denied merely on reasoning that form 10 is filed belatedly: ITATSwati Maliwal case takes new turn with Kejriwal’s assistant Bibhav Kumar filing FIR against herI-T- Unexplained money - Additions sustained as assessee unable to provide proper explanation for amount withdrawn & subsequently deposited into same bank account: ITATIndia says Chabahar Port to benefit Central Asia and AfghanistanRussia seizes Italy’s UniCredit assets worth USD 463 mnCus - Order re-determining transaction value based on CRCL test report is not correct & hence unsustainable: CESTATPutin says NO to Macron’s call for ceasefire in Ukraine during OlympicsCus - If price is not sole consideration for sale, then transaction value can be rejected under Rule 8 of Export Valuation Rules & then must be redetermined sequentially through Rules 4 to 6: CESTATSC upholds ICAI rules capping number of audits per year
 
I-T - Once taxpayer revises his return, he can claim interest on refund only from date of revised return, since delay in claiming enhanced refund is attributable to him: HC

 

By TIOL News Service

ERNAKULAM, FEB 27, 2019: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH IS - Whether taxpayer is eigible to claim interest u/s 244 on income tax refund, only from the date of revised return and not original return, as the delay in claiming enhanced refund can only be attributable to the taxpayer himself. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

Consequent to filing of its return, the assessee was issued with an order computing refund at Rs.34,53,882/-. Since there was no interest computed u/s 244, the assessee filed an application u/s 154, which was considered and an order was passed computing the interest from Apr 01, 2002 to Oct 31, 2006, on which later date the entire refund was effected. Subsequently, an assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w/s 147. The tax payable was as per Section 115JB, which exceeded the tax on the total income computed. The dispute arose when a rectification was made u/s 154 reducing the interest granted to the period between Aug 02, 2006 to Oct 31, 2006 @ 0.5%. This rectification order did not indicate as to why such a rectification was made. A representation was accordingy filed by the assessee which was however declined. Subsequently, an order came to be passed stating that the delay in granting refund was attributable to the assessee, and hence the interest was directed at a lower rate @ 5%.

High Court held:

++ in the present case, the assessee had filed Forum-29B only on Sep 07, 2006. However, the question is as to whether in carrying out verification u/s 143(1) and processing the refund, the existence of Form-29B is essential or not. In the present case, though Form-29B was filed only on Sep 07, 2006, it is seen that an intimation u/s 143(1) was issued before that on July 20, 2003. A refund was also issued computing the tax payable u/s 115JB on Aug 03, 2006. Hence, it is very clear that the filing of Form-29B was not at all required for processing the return and granting the refund which had been done prior to such filing of statement in Form- 29B. Hence, the date of filing of Form-29B cannot at all be relevant for attributing delay on the part of assessee for processing of refund;

++ now, the question arises as to clause (b) of Section 244A. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the original return on Oct 29, 2002, which was processed and a refund of Rs.86,333/- issued on May 15, 2003. Subsequently, revised return was filed on Mar 22, 2004 claiming a refund of Rs.1,71,76,655/-. Hence, necessarily, the refund as now ordered by the AO can only relate back to the date of filing of revised return. The delay in claiming the enhanced refund can only be attributable to the assessee and the same was claimed by a revised return only on Mar 22, 2004. Hence for an amount of Rs.1,70,90,322/-, the interest can be computed only from Mar 22, 2004.

(See 2019-TIOL-484-HC-KERALA-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.