Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 398 - KERALA HIGH COURTInterest on refunds - whether the Chief commissioner was justified in rejecting interest for the period of delay? - Unexplained inordinate delay in payment of interest within the statutory period by the department - Held that:- A certificate to the effect that tax has been deducted and specifying the amount so deducted, rate of tax and such other particulars, as may be prescribed. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the obligation to provide a certificate for deducting tax is on the deductor. The question is, if there is any defect in such certificate, and the petitioner fails to get it cured before filing of the return, petitioner can be termed as a person who had caused the delay. No doubt, as rightly held by the respondent, if the defect is noticeable on receipt of the certificate, it is for the deductee who makes a claim on the basis of the certificate to get the defects cured. This is an instance where substantial time had elapsed for curing the defects, which according to the Department, is attributable to the assessee. When such a view is possible and the claim for interest is denied on that specific period, do not think that this Court will be justified in taking a different view. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the defect is cured, the parties have to go back to their original position, but the question is whether there is an obligation on the part of the Department to pay interest on the amount to be refunded. When a statute in the form of Section 244A(2) clearly specifies that interest need not be paid if the proceedings of refund is delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, in that event, the respondents having refused interest on the basis of factual finding relying upon the statutory provision, do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the said orders. Coming to the judgment in Sandvik Asia Ltd. (2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME Court), that was a case in which the question that had arisen was whether the assessee was entitled to interest on the amounts of interest paid under Section 214 or 244 of the IT Act. Question considered was whether an assessee was entitled to be compensated by the Department for the delay in paying to the assessee all amounts admittedly due to it, the delay ranging from 12 to 17 years. Thus do not think that the factual issues arising in the present case and the judgment in Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) has any resemblance. Even otherwise, this is an instance where interest has been paid but denied only for certain period for reasons stated in the impugned orders, since the delay has been attributed to the assessee.
|