Ijm Corporation Berhad vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.13284 OF 2016 IJM Corporation Berhad – V/s - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others Present : Hon’ble Shri Rajendra Menon,the Acting C.J. Hon’ble Shri H.P.Singh, J.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K.Lal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri K.N.Pethia, Advocate, for respondent no.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R (23-01-2017) Petitioner was awarded a contract by the National Highways Authority for construction of four lane road Jhansi- to Lakhnadon as per detail indicated in the writ petition by a contract entered into on 09-04-2006. In the execution of the contract while making payment of bills certain tax as imposed was to be paid was deducted and deposited with the competent authority of the revenue under the TDS Scheme, in some of the deduction made and deposited under the TDS, interest was also recovered from the petitioner by the National Highway Authority and deposited with the revenue i.e. Income Tax Department. However, finally when the assessments were completed for various assessment years from 2008-09 to 2011-2012 as are indicated in the body of the petition it was found that the petitioner company had suffered losses and therefore, no tax liability was imposed upon them, accordingly finding there to be no tax liability, the TDS amounts deposited were also refunded. However, interest on the TDS deposited under section 201(1) and 201(1-A) of the Income Tax was not refunded and claiming refund of the interest which was deposited, once TDS has been refunded this writ petition has been filed. 2. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that merely because the tax was not liable to be paid, if the TDS was refunded ipso facto on such consideration the entire interest amout deposited cannot be refunded. Refund of interest has to be undertaken in accordance to the statutory provisions applicable and after examining the same only a decision can be taken as to whether the interest is liable to be refunded in its totality or on account of the delay in deposit of TDS interest is liable to be paid in law which becomes non refundable. Be it as it may be the fact remains that the question of refund of interest to the petitioner in accordance to the law has to be decided and as respondent no.2, the competent authority has not taken any decision in this regard, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent no.2 for considering the question of refund of the interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition in the following manner: 3- On the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order alongwith detailed claim for refund of interest on the TDS paid by the petitioner and deposited with the revenue by the respondent no.3 alongwith interest, respondent no.2 shall consider the claim of the petitioner, if required, hear the petitioner and respondent no.3 and thereafter pass appropriate order with regard to the claim made for, refund of the interest in accordance with law . The aforesaid exercise be completed and a final decision taken in accordance with law after hearing all concerned preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4- With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) (H.P.SINGH) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Hsp/-