R.K. GARG, CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH & ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the assessee's submission that the interest should not be taxed until the dispute attains finality lacks merit. The court reasoned that once the assessee has received the amount of interest, it has rightly been brought to tax in the year of receipt. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's view that if there is any subsequent variation in the order due to pending litigation, it can be rectified through proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. Consequently, the court found no substantial question of law arising from the case and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, R. K. Garg, is in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated May 7, 2009. The assessment year in question is 2005-06. The dispute concerns the taxability of interest received by the assessee under Section 244-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This interest was received in the financial year 2004-05, relating to a refund granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer brought this interest to tax for assessment year 2005-06, an action upheld by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The assessee's appeal to the High Court challenges this taxation.
What were the issues?
The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the interest amount is taxable when the matter concerning the refund is still pending adjudication, and thus, the interest may not have accrued finally. 2. Whether the authorities below acted legally in not following the judgments of various courts, including the Apex Court and the High Court. 3. Whether the impugned orders are legally sustainable. The assessee argued that the interest should not be taxed until the dispute attains finality, as there's a possibility of the order awarding interest being set aside, requiring the assessee to refund the amount. The assessee contended that taxation should occur only in the year the dispute is finally resolved. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 212 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2010 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J. The assessee is in appeal before this court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1010/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06, raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in holding that the amount of interest is taxable as the same cannot be said to have accrued to the assessee as the matter is still pending adjudication is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below, in not following the judgment of the various Court including the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iii) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below, the impugned orders Annexure A-1 to A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law?” Briefly the facts are that while framing the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02, certain additions were made by the Assessing officer. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, “the CIT (A)”).
(2) accepted the plea raised by the assessee and deleted the additions. Along with the refund, the assessee was held entitled to interest under Section 244-A of the Act. The revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT (A) accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. Along with the refund, the interest was received by the assessee in the financial year 2004-05. It was considered for assessment in the assessment year 2005-06 by the assessing officer vide order dated 29.11.2007. In appeal, the order of assessment bringing the amount of interest received by the assessee on the amount of refund was upheld by the CIT (A). Even the Tribunal also upheld that order. It is against this order that the assessee is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter in dispute being pending, the interest awarded thereon should not be taxed till such time the dispute attains finality as there can be a chance that the order awarding interest may be set aside and in that eventuality the assessee may have to refund back that amount. The same should be assessed to tax only in the year it attains finality. After hearing learned counsel for the assessee, we do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once the assessee has received the amount of interest, the same has rightly been brought to tax by the assessing officer in the year it was received. However, in case subsequently there is any variation in the order in the pending litigation, the same can very well taken care of in proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, as has been rightly upheld by the Tribunal.
For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.8.2010 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) vs Judge
More judgments on Section 244A
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Pratibha Sanjai Srivastava, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2565/AHD/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026