News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
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 Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.