TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The dispute is only with regard to the date from which interest on refund amount to be awarded i.e, either from the date of exemption or from the date of the application. The same has not been considered by the authorities below. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.5.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent declining to award interest on refund as per Annexure-F and consequential Revision Order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-G, in all these writ petitions are hereby quashed. The matters are remanded to the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for re-adjudication - Writ Petition No. 44116/2014 c/w Writ Petition Nos. 44117/2014, 44118/2014, 44119/2014, 44120/2014 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - MR. B. VEERAPPA J. Petitioner (Common in all the petitions) (By Sri M.V. Sheshachala, Senior Counsel for Sri Aravind V. Chavan, Advocate) Respondents (Common in all the petitions) (By Sri E. I. Sanmathi, Advocate) O R D E R All these writ petitions are filed by the common petitioner M/s New Mangalore Port Trust for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.5.2011 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2003. That is the subject matter of appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax before this Court in ITA No.146/2008. 5. This Court in ITA No.146/2008 after hearing both the parties by an order dated 7.10.2014 has recorded a finding that the Tribunal has taken pains to set out the facts of the case, the relevant provisions, the amendment, the object with which the trust is established, the judgments on which reliance is placed and later has rightly come to the conclusion that the delay is a bonafide one and therefore, it requires to be condoned. It has also taken note of the parliamentary legislation which was passed by the Government Major Ports, the nature of work the assessee is carrying on, the way in which they are protecting the interest of the country, the lengthy coast line in the west and in the east and held that therefore, it is entitled to registration under Section 12A of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is flawless and there is no justification to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the appeal came to be rejected by this Court. 6. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Authority by an order dated 24.3.2006 exercising the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a perverse finding contrary to the materials on record. Therefore the order passed by the revisional authority cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the respondents while interpreting Section 244A(2) of the Act, has failed to take into consideration the period to be excluded which was attributable to the delay caused by the revenue and the same should have been decided by the Prl. Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whose decision would have contributed to the correct interpretation regarding grant of interest on refund. Both the authorities have not considered the same. He would further contend that in view of the provisions of Sections 244A(1), 244A(2) 244(1A) and 153 of the Act, if the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed, period of delay for which interest is payable shall be decided by the Prl. Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. Therefore the impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustained. Hence he sought to quash the impugned orders by allowing the writ petitions. 9. Per contra, Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is entitled for registration under Section 12A of the Act and there is no error committed by the Tribunal and the said order passed by this Court has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional authority has issued certificate under Section 12AA of the Act declaring that the assessee is a charitable trust w.e.f. 1.4.2003 as per Annexure-D dated 27.7.2009. 14. The material on record clearly depicts that in view of pendency of the proceedings stated supra, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 24.3.2006 raising a demand. That was the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties by an order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure-E) allowed the revision and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in view of registration of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act in respect of the impugned assessment years. The said facts are not in dispute. 15. Inspite of the order granting exemption by the Tribunal and certificate issued by the jurisdictional authority and confirmed by this Court, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order on 27.5.2011 (Annexure-F) and granted refund of ₹ 14,22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
