SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 2126

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

Advocates appeared:
Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, Zoheb Hossain, Advocate

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 payment within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:

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.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top