TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployer should be refunded only to the employer and the employee should approach the employer to get their refund along with interest. Held- allowing the petition, that having regard to the fact that the assessability of the perquisite value of allotment of stock option was held not justified and not in accordance with law, the question of retention of tax collected by way of tax deduction at source for and on behalf of the individual assessee by the revenue did not arise. Thus the order passed by the Chief Commissioner was liable to set aside and directed to refund the amount. - 2504 of 2010 and 1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN J. K. Soundararajan for the petitioner. Patti B. Jegannathan for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, which allowed the appeal filed by the company holding that allotting of shares to employees did not amount to a perquisite, attracting a liability under the Act to deduct tax at source. The Department challenged the order before the High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court, which were decided against the Department and reported in CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2008] 297 ITR 167, Based on these developments, the petitioner filed a revised return on June 16, 2003, after expiry of the time under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated it as non est in the eye of law and did not issue any refund as claimed by the assessee. 4. By order dated January 7, 2010, the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated August 6, 2009, in W. P. No. 11044 of 2009 ( S. Thigarajan v. Asst. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 581), wherein under similar circumstances, the Karnataka High Court considering the entirety of the claim in the light of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court directed refund of the amount. In so far as the claim of interest is concerned, the Karnataka High Court pointed out that no interest is admissible on belated refund claim. 6. On notice, the first respondent filed a counter. The learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that as the petitioner did not file the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, the allotment made had been subjected to tax by the Revenue and the TDS received from the company. When the liability itself stood cancelled, it is rather ironical that the respondents should contend that the question as to whether the payment by the employer was in accordance with the provisions of law, a debatable issue. 9. In the circumstances, agreeing with the view expressed by the Kamataka High Court in W. P. No. 11044 of 2009 dated August 6, 2009, ( S. Thigarajan v. Asst. CIT [2010] 322 ITR 581) the order passed by the first respondent stands set aside. As far as the interest aspect is concerned, the first respondent is directed to refund the amount with interest payable as per the provisions of the Act. The writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
