IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Deepak Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Department Of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 6264 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2021
Interest - Income Tax Act - The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interest in accordance with section 132B(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Respondent had not paid any interest on the amount seized from the Petitioner for over four years after completion of assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within four weeks.
Issues: Non-payment of interest by the Respondent on the amount seized from the Petitioner, despite the provision for interest in the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found in favor of the petitioner, directing the Respondent to take action on the representation for interest payment within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking interest in accordance with section 132B (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner 'by sitting on the amount' seized from the Petitioner for over four years after completion of assessment. He states that the Respondent did not pay any interest on the amount seized by the Department even though such interest is provided for in the statute itself, i.e. u/s 132(B)(4) for the period after expiry of one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of last authorization ofsearch and seizure uptill the order of assessment is passed and thereafter at a reasonable rate of interest till realization of such amount.
4. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Department of Income Tax.
5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner has been making representations since 12th May,
2017 for refund of the interest amount. However, no action has been taken by the Respondent till date.
6. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, New Delhi to treat the present writ petition as a representation and to decide the same by way of a reasoned order within four weeks. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
The court enforced the provision for interest payment in accordance with section 132B(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by directing the Respondent to take action on the representation for interest pay....
The court affirmed the obligation of tax authorities to comply with statutory provisions for interest payments on seized amounts, directing timely action to address delays in such refunds.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 132B(4)(a) read with Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the payment of interest on the seized amount.
Statutory provisions require authorities to pay interest on seized amounts post a 120-day period if applications remain undecided, reinforcing timely responses to citizens' representations.
The court emphasized the right to claim interest in accordance with the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the need for a reasoned order in such matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest as calculated by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent, and is also entitled to interest durin....
The court emphasized that differing circumstances in tax cases must be individually assessed, particularly regarding claims for interest on delayed refunds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'shall' in the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the determination of its mandat....
The court mandates a reasoned order regarding the interest claim under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, emphasizing the duty to provide a fair opportunity for hearing.
The court has the authority to direct the revenue to remit disputed refund amounts and grant liberty to file a rectification application for differences in refund amounts under the Income Tax Act, 19....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.