News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
I-T - Once taxpayer revises his return, he can claim interest on refund only from date of revised return, since delay in claiming enhanced refund is attributable to him: HC

 

By TIOL News Service

ERNAKULAM, FEB 27, 2019: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH IS - Whether taxpayer is eigible to claim interest u/s 244 on income tax refund, only from the date of revised return and not original return, as the delay in claiming enhanced refund can only be attributable to the taxpayer himself. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

Consequent to filing of its return, the assessee was issued with an order computing refund at Rs.34,53,882/-. Since there was no interest computed u/s 244, the assessee filed an application u/s 154, which was considered and an order was passed computing the interest from Apr 01, 2002 to Oct 31, 2006, on which later date the entire refund was effected. Subsequently, an assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r/w/s 147. The tax payable was as per Section 115JB, which exceeded the tax on the total income computed. The dispute arose when a rectification was made u/s 154 reducing the interest granted to the period between Aug 02, 2006 to Oct 31, 2006 @ 0.5%. This rectification order did not indicate as to why such a rectification was made. A representation was accordingy filed by the assessee which was however declined. Subsequently, an order came to be passed stating that the delay in granting refund was attributable to the assessee, and hence the interest was directed at a lower rate @ 5%.

High Court held:

++ in the present case, the assessee had filed Forum-29B only on Sep 07, 2006. However, the question is as to whether in carrying out verification u/s 143(1) and processing the refund, the existence of Form-29B is essential or not. In the present case, though Form-29B was filed only on Sep 07, 2006, it is seen that an intimation u/s 143(1) was issued before that on July 20, 2003. A refund was also issued computing the tax payable u/s 115JB on Aug 03, 2006. Hence, it is very clear that the filing of Form-29B was not at all required for processing the return and granting the refund which had been done prior to such filing of statement in Form- 29B. Hence, the date of filing of Form-29B cannot at all be relevant for attributing delay on the part of assessee for processing of refund;

++ now, the question arises as to clause (b) of Section 244A. Admittedly, the assessee had filed the original return on Oct 29, 2002, which was processed and a refund of Rs.86,333/- issued on May 15, 2003. Subsequently, revised return was filed on Mar 22, 2004 claiming a refund of Rs.1,71,76,655/-. Hence, necessarily, the refund as now ordered by the AO can only relate back to the date of filing of revised return. The delay in claiming the enhanced refund can only be attributable to the assessee and the same was claimed by a revised return only on Mar 22, 2004. Hence for an amount of Rs.1,70,90,322/-, the interest can be computed only from Mar 22, 2004.

(See 2019-TIOL-484-HC-KERALA-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS