TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out the assessment, though delay was attributed on the part of the respondents and not on the petitioners from the date of assessment order till payment or not? - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the said Section 132-B (4) (b) provides that, interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under Section 153A or under Chapter XIV-B. In our view the said provision does not indicate any bar from awarding payment of interest or compensation in a situation where Court finds any delay on the part of the revenue in releasing the amount within time specifically prescribed under the provisions of law for no fault of the assessee. The Hon ble Supreme Court in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune [ 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the claim for payment of interest under Section 214 of the Act, 1961 made by the petitioner whether there was gross delay on the part of the revenue ranging from 12 to 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. totaling to ₹ 5,99,780/- after giving credit of the interest already paid by the revenue for the period from 01.03.2018 to 13.12.2019 in the sum of ₹ 2,06,360/- within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. - WRIT PETITION NO.4402 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2021 - R. D. DHANUKA S. G. MEHARE, JJ. Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. B. Gaikwad, ASG for Respondent No.1. Mr. Alok sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 10. JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Gaikwad, learned A.S.G. for respondent no.1 waives notice. Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.2 to 10 waives notice. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek order and directions against respondent no.3 to release the remaining cash amount of ₹ 24,29,000/as shown in the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioners also seek order and direction to pay the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 with compensatory interest at the rate of 12% p.a. fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of the period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under Section 153-A or under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, 1961. 9. It is submitted that, since the authority has not passed assessment order under Section 153-A or under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, 1961, the respondents could not have retained the cash amount of the petitioners at all. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest after the passing of the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019. The respondents, however, cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due and payable with interest from the date of the assessment order on the ground that there is no provision for payment of interest after the date of passing of the assessment order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the chart tendered across the bar showing the amount seized by the respondents, interest payable for the period from 01.03.2018 to 07.12.2020, interest paid from the period 01.03.2018 to 13.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emainin amount was yet to be paid. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by this Court and submits that, the petitioners are entitled to larger reliefs, the petitioners have restricted the claim for payment of interest for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as per Section 132-B (4) or Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, 1961 with compensatory interest at the rate of 6% p.a. totaling to ₹ 5,99,780/after giving credit of the interest already paid by the revenue for the period from 01.03.2018 to 13.12.2019 in the sum of ₹ 2,06,360/-. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in Laws (DLH)-2007-4-62 and would submit that, Delhi High Court has awarded claim for interest in view of the delay on the part of the revenue to pay cash amounts seized after the date of assessment order till the payment was released after considering the provision of Section 132-B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only upto the date of passing of assessment order under the said provision and not upto the date of payment. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors. reported in (2018) TaxCorp (IDT) 114975 (SC) and would submit that, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly held that, when the words in the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. 21. It is submitted that, if the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In applying rule of plain meaning any hardship and inconvenience cannot be the basis to alter the meaning to the language employed by the legislation. This is especially so in fiscal statutes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved party has to be awarded. Even today no assessment order is passed by the respondents in respect of petitioner nos.5 to 9 and 11. 27. Section 132(B)(4)(a b) of the Act, 1961 are reproduced as under: 4(a). The Central Government shall pay simple interest at the rate of on-half per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount by which the aggregate amount of money seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A, as reduced by the amount of money, if any, released under the first proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1), and of the proceeds, if any, of the assets sold towards the discharge of the existing liability referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1), exceeds the aggregate of the amount required to meet the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of this section. (b) Such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under Section 153A or under Chapter XIV-B. REASONS AND CONCL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under Section 153A or under Chapter XIV-B. In our view the said provision does not indicate any bar from awarding payment of interest or compensation in a situation where Court finds any delay on the part of the revenue in releasing the amount within time specifically prescribed under the provisions of law for no fault of the assessee. 33. The Hon ble Supreme Court in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) while dealing with the claim for payment of interest under Section 214 of the Act, 1961 made by the petitioner whether there was gross delay on the part of the revenue ranging from 12 to 17 years held that, there is no question of the delay being 'justifiable' as is argued and in any event if the revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the withholding of monies is 'justifiable' or 'not wrongful'. 34. The Hon ble Supreme Court considered the issue that, this Act provided for payment of compensation for delayed payment of amounts due to an assessee in a case where these amounts inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said judgment. 38. The Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax XI Ors. (supra) after adverting to its earlier judgment in case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) has held that there is no justification in refusing to pay compensation/damages for the delay caused by the respondents revenue in releasing the payment within the time prescribed due and payable to the petitioners and such interpretation cannot be accepted which would devoid the rights of the assessee. The Delhi High Court accordingly directed the revenue to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the balance amount for the subsequent period i.e. from the date of assessment order till the payment. In our view, the said judgment also would apply to the facts of this case. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax XI Ors. (supra). 39. In so far as judgment of the Hon ble Supreme court in a case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for such wrongful deprivation of their amount lying with the authority for no fault of the assessees. 42. Though in this case the petitioners have prayed for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.11.2017 to 01.12.2020 on cash amount of ₹ 9,35,000/- and compensatory interest at the same rate from 24.12.2019 till 01.12.2020 on the amount of cash released of ₹ 14,36,000/-, the petitioners have restricted their prayer for compensatory interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on these two amounts and also on ₹ 24,29,000/-. In our view, though Delhi High court had awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. towards compensation/damages for the delayed period, since the petitioners in this case have restricted their claim for compensation/damages at the rate of 6% p.a. for the delayed period, we are inclined to allow the claim for the interest by way of compensation/damages at the rate of 6% p.a. for delayed period already quantified in the chart submitted by the petitioners. 43. We accordingly pass the following order: A. The respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
