TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is vested with the Hon’ble High Court. Thus in absence of any specific provisions in the Income tax Act, for allowance of interest on refund or compensation for the delayed period of refund of interest, we are constrained to hold that the appeal of the assessee cannot be allowed. - IT(ss)A No.01/Ran/2016 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2018 - Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member Assessee by: Shri S.K.Poddar Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Sutariya, CIT(A), JSR ORDER Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Ranchi Patna, dated 16.9.2015, for the block period 1.4.1989 to 22.9.1999. 2. The assessee has raised the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee is that interest has not been allowed to him on the amount of interest which became refundable to him in pursuance to the refund allowed by the appellate authorities. In pursuance to Tribunal s order dated 28.10.2015, the assessee became eligible for refund of ₹ 44,70,554/- out of the seized money. The Assessing Officer has granted interest u/s.132B(4) on the said amount of ₹ 44,70,554/- of ₹ 13,97,000/-. 4. The grievance of the assessee is that on this ₹ 13,97,000/- interest should be granted to him as because the said amount was refunded to him in May, 2012 after inordinate delay. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Umang Agrawal vs CIT, (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that in Sandvik case ((supra)) this court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment. In other words, the interpretation placed is that the Revenue is obliged to pay an interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period. 7. As we have already noticed, in Sandvik case ((supra)) this court was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the great prejudice caused to it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this court had come to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd that we are not directing payment of interest over interest, we have only provided that the assessee must be compensated for retention of money i.e. interest due under Section 132B (4) and Section 244B of the Income Tax Act by the department for long duration, namely, 9 and 8 years. Such payment of compensation has been recognized and accepted in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd (supra), as also in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Flouro Chemicals (II) (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment have already been quoted above. We are of the opinion that the department was legally not justified in retention of the amount of interest which was payable to the assessee both under Section 134B (4) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
