News Update

CDS Gen Anil Chauhan to chair Parivartan Chintan - IICus - Warehousing of imported solar panels/solar modules - Instruction dated 9 th July 2022 appears to travel far beyond the advisory and clarificatory function which stands placed in the Board by virtue of s.151A of CA, hence quashed: HCPhase III: EC records 65.68% voter turnoutCus - Petitioner had opted for conversion from a less rigorous procedure of availing Duty Drawback Scheme to a more rigorous procedure under Advance Authorisation Scheme and as per Circular 36/10-Customs, same was not possible: HCDRDO organises two-day National Symposium & Industry Meet on 'Emerging TechnologiesCX - Respondents cannot go beyond the Reward Scheme as no discretion is vested with them to release any amount towards the reward, before finalization of the proceedings against assessee: HCGST - Petitioner is given liberty to manually file an appeal against impugned order regarding transitional credit of SGST for which they had valid evidence for payment of VAT of same amount: HCGST - For the period for which return was filed, registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively: HCHas Globalisation favoured capital more than labour? Can taxing super-rich help?GST - SC asks Govt not to use coercion for recovering arrearsChanging Tax Landscape in IndiaPrivate equity funds pouring in India’s healthcare sectorInterpretation of StatutesGoogle, Microsoft move Delhi HC against order to erase non-consensual intimate images16th Finance Commission invites views from general public on terms of referenceEvery party committed to ensure PoK returns to India; Jaishankar695 candidates to contest LS elections in Phase 5Astronomers’ efforts lead to discovery of a rocky planet with atmosphereCSIR hosts Student-Science Connect program on Climate ChangeVolkswagen asks EU not to raise tariffs on EVs from ChinaI-T - Assessee given insufficient time to file reply to Show Cause Notice; assessment order quashed; matter remanded for reconsidering assessee's replies: HCChina blocks imports from Intel & QualcommI-T - Assessee has 5 email IDs & responded to communications received on one of these IDs; Assessee cannot claim to have been denied an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of order: HCRecord rainfall damages over 1 lakh homes in Brazil; over 100 lives lostI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 r/w Section 115BBE are unwarranted where assessee duly explains nature & source of cash receipts, through sufficient documentation: ITATRussia bombards Ukraine’s power supply; Serious outages fearedI-T- Re-assessment cannot be resorted to beyond 4 years from end of relevant AY, where assessee has not failed to file ITR or to make full & true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment: ITATIndia received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNI-T- Receipt of subscription fees can't be considered as commercial activity: ITATPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkST - In case of payment received through cheque, it is the date of honouring cheque, which has to be construed as date of receipt of advance payment and since amount was received by appellant on or after appointed date, appellant would not be entitle to benefit of exemption notification: CESTAT86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveCus - When undervaluation of goods is alleged solely based on value of contemporaneous imports, all details relating to such imports are to be necessarily established by Revenue: CESTAT
 
Whether in case of refund of excess amount provisions of Sec 132(4)(b) have any application to decide interest liability for pre-assessment period - YES: SC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, DEC 04, 2013: THE issues before the Bench are - Whether in case of refund of excess amount the provisions of Sec 132(4)(b) have any application to decide the interest liability for the pre-assessment period and Whether provisions of Sec 132(4)(b) deal with pre-assessment period and provisions of Ss 240 and 244A deal with post-assessment period. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Facts of the case

The Revenue conducted a Search & Seizure on the premises of the assessee, an HUF, and seized cash of Rs. 2,35,000/-. On 31.5.1990, an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be passed. The Assessing Officer calculated the tax liability and the cash seized in the search from the assessee's house was appropriated. However, the order of the Assessing Officer was finally set-aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20.2.2004. The Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant was refunded the amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- along with interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by the Assessing Officer) until the date of refund.

The assessee claimed that he was entitled to interest under Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act which was holding the field at the relevant time for the period from expiry of period of six month's from the date of order under Section 132(5) to the date of regular assessment order. In other words, the order under Section 132(5) of the Act having been passed on 31.5.1990, six months expired on 30.11.1990 and the last of the regular assessments was done on 4.3.1994, the assessee claimed interest under Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994.

Having heard the parties, the Apex Court held that,

++ a close look at the provisions and, particularly, clause (b) of Section 132B(4) of the Act clearly shows that where the aggregate of the amounts retained under Section 132 of the Act exceeds the amounts required to meet the liability under Section 132B(1)(i), the Department is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen percent on expiry of six months from the date of the order under Section 132(5) of the Act to the date of the regular assessment or re-assessment or the last of such assessments or reassessments, as the case may be. It is true that in the regular assessment done by the Assessing Officer, the tax liability for the relevant period was found to be higher and, accordingly, the seized cash under Section 132 of the Act was appropriated against the assessee's tax liability but the fact of the matter is that the order of the Assessing Officer was over-turned by the Tribunal finally on 20.2.2004. As a matter of fact, the interest for the post assessment period i.e. from 4.3.1994 until refund on the excess amount has already been paid by the department to the assessee. The department denied the payment of interest to the assessee under Section 132B(4)(b), according to Mr. Arijit Prasad, the counsel for the revenue on the ground that the refund of excess amount is governed by Section 240 of the Act and Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act has no application;

++ but, in our view, Section 132B(4)(b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and Section 240 or for that matter 244(A). The former deals with pre-assessment period in the matters of search and seizure and the later deals with post assessment period as per the order in appeal;

++ the view of the department is not right on the plain reading of Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned order and hold that the appellant is entitled to the simple interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum under Section 132B(4)(b) of the Act from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994.

++ the revenue shall calculate the interest payable to the assessee as above and pay the same to the assessee within two months from today. No costs.

(See 2013-TIOL-64-SC-IT-LB)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.