SMT. UTTARA NERURKAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2) KENDRIYA SADANA KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1), HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, # 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032.

Memo is taken on record.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, amounts due to the petitioner towards refund of the Tax Deducted at Source are as follows:-

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 0.50% per month on interest calculated up to 08.10.2010, from 09.10.2010 up to 20.03.2013, the date of payment of the TDS refund along with interest in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P. No.11044/2009 and connected petitions dated 06.08.2009 in case of S. Thigarajan and Ors., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Learned counsel hastens to add that though petitioner has restricted her claim for interest at 0.50% per month, while in the aforesaid decision, the Revenue was directed to consider payment of interest at 18% per annum, which has been complied with, the petitioner would be satisfied with the claim made in the petition.

The answer to the question over payment of interest over interest need not detain the Court for long in the light of the observations made in S. Thigarajan`s case. In other words, the Revenue is bound to pay interest on interest, if the amounts due are not paid on the date it became due up to the date of payment.

Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to secure instructions and also direct the authorities to pay the interest over interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the Revenue having collected TDS from several employees of M/s. Infosys, similarly circumstanced as that of the petitioner, S. Thigarajan and others, a direction be issued to the Revenue to dispose of all the applications pending in the light of the decision in S. Thigarajan`s case within a time frame since it would be short of harassment of such applicants to come before Court and seek similar orders.

Learned counsel for the Revenue to place before the Court the total number of such applications pending and the reasons as to why they are kept pending, though a decision in that regard is made in S. Thigarajan`s case (supra).

Heard Sri Indrakumar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue who submits that there are 119 applications, which are pending, similar to that of the petitioner and that the efforts should be taken to

Learned counsel for the Revenue further submits that the petitioner has since been paid, the entire amounts due together with interest and interest on interest upto date, which the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute.

Recording the submission of the learned counsel, nothing further survives for consideration in these petitions and are accordingly disposed of.