9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 27.5.2011 as per Annexure-F passed by the 2nd respondent declining to award interest on refund and consequential revision order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-G and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award interest on the refund granted in accordance with law. 2. The amount of refund as per the order of the Assessing Officer and the date of Demand for the different assessment years in these writ petitions are as under: WP No. Assessment year Amount of refund Date of demand 44116/2014 2003-04 Rs.14,22,18,130.00 19.02.2010 44117/2014 2004-05 Rs. 7,65,59,764.00 19.02.2010 44118/2014 2005-06 Rs.11,18,19,414.00 31.03.2005 44119/2014 2006-07 Rs.35,93,73,090.00 22.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent writ petitions are filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 rejecting to award interest on the refund amount, are erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the 1st respondent exercised jurisdiction illegally and unlawfully by not taking into account the relevant material on record. He would also contend that the respondents have erroneously attributed all the delay on the assessee and refused to award interest on the refund, which is impermissible. He would further contend that the 1st respondent - revisional author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d orders passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all these writ petitions. He would further contend that it is for the assessee to satisfy the provisions of Section 244 A(2) of the Act, which he has not discharged and therefore the order passed by the authorities cannot be interfered by this Court. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 11. It is an undisputed fact that in all these petitions, the petitioner - assessee is a Trust. It is owned by the Government of India and it carries on the operations of shipping. The entire income of the assessee was exempted under Section 10(20) of the Act up to 31.3.2003. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject matter before this Court in ITA No.146/2008 filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 7.10.2014 dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). All these aspects are not considered by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also relevant to state at this stage that in view of Sections 244A(1), 244A(2), 244(1A) and 153 and other relevant provisions of the Act, the Prl. Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is the final authority to decide regarding the date from which interest on refund to be granted. In all these writ petitions, order of refund to the assessee is not at all challenged by the Revenue. There is no dispute with regard to the refund amount to the assessee. The order of refund is final. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
