TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund and condone the delay. Chief Commissioner condone the delay but declined admissible interest. Held that- the first and second revised returns along with the application to condone the delay in filing the same, were rendered infructuous, by the law declared by the Supreme Court confirming the judgment of High Court and the Appellate Tribunal. The order of Chief Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction and as a consequence the order of Assistant Commissioner, giving effect to the orders of the Chief Commissioner were unsustainable, thus liable to be quashed. - 9838, 9839, 11044, 11763 and 14227 of 2009 (T-IT). - - - Dated:- 6-8-2009 - RAM MOHAN REDDY J. Smt. K. K. Chythanya and Raghuraman Chythanya for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 4. The order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) when challenged in an appeal was dismissed by order dated September 12, 2000, by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -IV, which when carried in a further appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, in I. T. A. No. 818-820 of 2000 it was held that the allotting of shares to employees did not amount to a perquisite, attracting a liability under the Act to deduct tax at source. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS), Circle 16(2), Bangalore, by order dated August 14, 2002, gave effect to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by directing the petitioners to claim credit for the TDS by filling Form No. 16, as the employer wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a perquisite attracting TDS, the Revenue was obliged under section 240 of the Act to refund the TDS, inclusive of interest at one half per cent. under section 244A of the Act, as detailed under: SI. No. TDS (Rs.) Interest from TO Amount (Rs.) 1. 10,18,357 (a) 1-4-1999 to 30-11-08 (b) 1-12-08 to 31-7-09 6,97,799.00 27,920.00 2. 56,69,711 (a) 1-4-99 to 30-6-99 (b) 1-7-08 to 31-7-09 37,44,411.00 243,387.00 3. 5,71,686 (a) 25-12-99 to 30-11-08 (b) 1-12-08 to 31-7-09 3,91,843.00 15,694.00 9. In addition it is contended that the first and second revised returns along with the application to condone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely:- (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one- half per cent. for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent. of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment; (b) in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the said facts in the order impugned, very strangely took up for consideration the applications to condone the delay in filing the revised returns and termed the same as "claim for refund". The question of exercise of jurisdiction under section 119(2) (b) of the Act did not arise. 14. In the admitted factual matrix, the order of the Chief Commissioner is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and illegal and as a consequence the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, giving effect to the orders of the Chief Commissioner are unsustainable. 15. It is no doubt true that the Revenue had the benefit of the monies belonging to the petitioners, up to the dates of refund, and there are a catena of decisions of the apex court, over payment of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
