TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue. As the impugned Order lacks sufficient reasoning to hold that the Revenue would be adversely affected by the grant of refund. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 15th June, 2022 passed under Section 241A of the Act is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43(1), Delhi with a direction to pass a fresh speaking order within six weeks. As the tax amount payable on the disputed amount of Rs.10.95 crore (being the claim for deduction under Section 10AA) under Section 115JB would be Rs.2,36,14,691/- and under the normal provisions of Act would be Rs.3,82,94,093/-, this Court is of the view that even if the higher amount of the aforesaid amounts is withheld, the Petitioner would still be entitled to refund of Rs.16,68,98,449/- forthwith along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the Act (which we are informed totals to Rs.2,42,00,275/- till 01st August, 2022). Till the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43(1), Delhi passes a fresh Order within the stipulated time, this Court directs the Respondents to refund Rs.16,68,98,449/- along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already been allowed in earlier years by the Respondents i.e. Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. She states that for Unit 2, this is the first year of claim. Hence, according to her, the question of allowability of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act for SEZ Unit 1 does not arise as the same is already accepted by the Respondents. 6. She emphasizes that Rs.10,95,87,033/- is the total deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act, out of which, Rs.10,44,91,121/- pertains to the old unit i.e. Unit 1, while Rs.50,95,912/- pertains to the new unit i.e. Unit 2. Consequently, according to her, over 95% of the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act pertains to the old Unit 1, the deduction of which already stands accepted by the Respondents by virtue of Orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the previous assessment years. 7. Issue notice. Mr.Sunil Agrawal, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. 8. He has handed over an e-mail dated 31st May, 2022 written to him by the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the said e-mail, after redacting the name of the officers in question is reproduced hereinbelow:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to substantiate how the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue. 10. It is settled law that the refund due to the Petitioner is liable to be released at the time of issuance of the intimation/order under Section 143(1) of the Act unless an Order for withholding of refund has been passed under Section 241A of the Act explicitly recording that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue. This Court in Maple Logistics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10961 has held as under:- 28. With this backdrop, we now consider the situation at hand. Here the return has been filed on 25.10.2017 for AY 2017-2018 and, therefore, the amended provisions would be applicable. In our considered opinion, the AO has completely misunderstood the refund mechanism and the import of Section 241A of the Act. The legislative intent is clear and explicit. The processing of return cannot be kept in abeyance, merely because a notice has been issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Post amendment, subsection (1D) of section 143 is inapplicable to returns furnished for the AY commencing on or after 1st Day of April 2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued under section 143(2), it is not a sufficient ground to withhold refund under section 241A and the order denying refund on this ground alone would be laconic. Additionally, the reasons which are to be recorded in writing have to also be approved by the Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner, as the case may be and this should be done objectively. (emphasis supplied) 11. Subsequently, in Ericsson India Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, New Delhi Anr., W.P.(C) 10373/2019 dated 18th February, 2020 this Court has held as under:- 18. The refund of amounts claimed where they appear justified, by itself cannot be said to be adverse to the interest of the revenue. The interest of revenue lies in collecting revenue in a legal and justified manner. It does not lie in retaining the collected taxes in excess of what is justified, since the excess collection cannot even be properly termed as revenue . The excess collection of tax is a liability of the State and it lies in the interest of the revenue of the State to discharge its interest bearing liability without any delay. The sovereign cannot, but, be seen as fair, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
