Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 138 - HC - Income TaxInterest on refund as per Section 244(A) - delay in refund - belated filing of return (ITR) - whether once the delay in filing the return has been condoned, it becomes a valid return and therefore grant of interest is consequential? - Eligible reason for delay occasioned in the adjudication of the writ petition - HELD THAT:- The petitioner claimed for refund by condoning the delay. The delay is condoned and held that the petitioner is entitled to refund. Now the Department is strictly implementing what has been directed by this Court [2007 (11) TMI 294 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Therefore, it is not a case of the petitioner that either inspite of a direction for payment of interest, the interest is not paid to the petitioner. Therefore, any claim for interest by referring to the judgment in this appeal is unsustainable and the claim is accordingly rejected. Then coming to the explanation of the petitioner that because of limitations under Section 64 of the Societies Act, 1969 returns could not be filed in time. At best it could be said the delay between 1997 to 2000 alone could be attributed to the petitioner and the delay between 2000 to 2008 cannot be attributed to the petitioner as the delay occasioned in the adjudication of the writ petition. The argument though appears to be persuasive and fails to notice that the delay in adjudication of the petition filed for condonation of the delay for refund cannot burden the Department for payment of interest as compensation. The refund claim is complying with the direction of this Court. According to us, the effort was to get refund, the refund was ordered by this Court and what happened in the interregnum since cannot prejudice the writ petitioner and should not also prejudice the Department by directing the payment of interest for the delay period. The claim of the petitioner for interest on the refunded amount is rightly considered and rejected by both the Commissioner in Ext.P9 and the judgment under appeal. The judgments relied on by the petitioner, after going through the circumstances and ratio laid down therein, we are of the view that the judgments are distinguishable in all fours. No other ground is canvassed.
|