SRI SALIL PUNOOSE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

PDF · subscribers
WP/42251/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01009162201625 August 2016Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for refund within three weeks. The court emphasized that the revenue must refund amounts within statutory periods and cannot assign technical reasons for non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought a refund of tax and interest amounting to Rs. 22,47,886/- after an earlier appeal was allowed in his favor. The Income Tax Department had not processed the refund application despite the court's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Department is obligated to issue refunds promptly after an appellate order in favor of the assessee, and whether technical reasons can justify delays in refund processing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A,Section 153(5),Section 135

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.42251 OF 2016 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

SRI SALIL PUNOOSE S/O SRI M G PUNOOSE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.385, I CROSS 4TH BLOC, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034.

…PETITIONER (BY: SMT.VANI H. ADV.)

AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(2), FIRST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 800 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

3.

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS

(SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R-1 & 2)

(R-3 .. SERVED)

- - - - -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE REFUND OF TAX AND INTEREST PAID BY THE PETITIONER TO AN EXTENT OF RS.22,47,886/- CONSEQUENT UPON THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2015 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE COURT PASSED IN ITA NO.699/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON THE REFUND AMOUNTS DUE TO PETITIONER, FROM THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE DATE ON WHICH REFUND IS GRANTED, IN TERMS OF SEC.244A OF THE ACT; TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY ADDITIONAL INTEREST AT 3% P.A. ON THE REFUND AMOUNTS DUE TO PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE FOLLOWING THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF THREE MONTHS TO THE DATE ON WHICH REFUND IS GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 244A(1A) OF THE ACT AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COSTS OF THIS WP SINCE THERE IS DERELICTION OF DUTY BY RESPONDENTS.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner has approached this court in ITA No.699/2009 challenging the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.698/Bang/2008 dated 12.6.2009. This court by its order dated 17.11.2015 allowed the appeal and formulated the substantial questions and

the same has been answered against the revenue and consequently the order of ITAT was set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he made an application dated 18.1.2016 with a prayer to give effect to the order passed by this court in ITA 699/2009. The said application for refund of tax paid has not been considered.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred Sec.153(5) of the Income Tax Act in which three months time is fixed for the purpose of refund. Hence impugned action of the respondent is contrary to the provisions referred therein and it is further submitted that 3% interest fixed under Sec.244A(1A) and 244(A) of the Act in which interest has to be initially at 3% thereafter at 6% and 3% and the same has to be calculated and thus makes a prayer for writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representation for refund of the tax collected with interest.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that because of the technical reasons the same has not been done he submitted that if some time is granted, the same would be repaid.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

5.

When an appeal is allowed and answered the substantial questions against the revenue, it is duty on the revenue to refund the amount within the statutory period as it is referred under Sec.135 of the Income Tax Act. In the instant case, refunding the amount as per the order of this court and non-considering the representation dated 18.1.2016 vide Annexure-B is contrary to law. It is expected of the Revenue, that they shall not assign any reasons including technical reasons for not complying the provisions of the Act and the orders passed by this Court. It ought to have communicated the petitioner for the delay. This shall be done here afterwards.

6.

With these observations, petition stands disposed of, directing the respondents to consider Annexure-B for refund of the amount in the light of the directions issued by this court in appeal ITA No.699/2009 within a period of three weeks from today. It is needless to state that respondent shall refund the amount with statutory interest.

Sd/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →