Court grants relief in tax refund case, quashes order denying interest

The court allowed the petition challenging an order under Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, where interest on a refund was denied due to alleged delay by the petitioner. The court found no evidence of delay attributable to the petitioner and granted a writ of certiorari to quash the order. A writ of Mandamus was issued to direct the respondent to provide interest on the refund for the specified period, with the department responsible for calculating and making the payments.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning an order under Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding delay in refund processing.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, where the Assessing Officer attributed the delay in refund processing to the petitioner not furnishing original advance tax challans. The Assessing Officer excluded the period of delay attributable to the petitioner from the interest payable period.

2. The petitioner filed its return of income for A.Y.-2001-2002 on 31st October 2001, declaring a loss. Despite submitting the return, the petitioner was asked to furnish it again due to a notice received under Section 142(1) of the Act. The petitioner provided the necessary documents, including advance tax challans and TDS certificates. The refund was granted for a portion of the amount paid as advance tax, but interest was not provided for a specific period.

3. An order was later passed under Section 154 of the Act, granting a refund of TDS amount along with interest under Section 244A, not related to the current petition. The assessment for A.Y.-2001-2002 was completed on 30th March 2004, determining the total loss.

4. The petitioner sought interest under Section 244A for the period not covered in the initial refund. However, the order impugned on 14th September 2004 stated that interest was not payable for the period due to the delay caused by the petitioner in submitting the original advance tax challans.

5. The court noted that there was no finding of delay attributable to the petitioner in the refund process. The petitioner had submitted the required documents after filing the return, and the benefit of advance tax had already been allowed. The court highlighted the lack of evidence showing delay and petitioner's responsibility for any delay.

6. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to grant interest on the refund for the specified period. The court clarified that the interest amount could be independently calculated by the department.

7. The petition was disposed of, emphasizing that the court's decision did not endorse the interest amount calculated by the petitioner, leaving it to the department to make the appropriate calculations and payments.

---