2022 (10) TMI 661 - HC - Income Tax

Court directs refund decision within 8 weeks, petitioner can pursue further legal action. No comments on merits.

Yogendra Kumar Gupta Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -21 New Delhi And Anr.

The court disposed of the writ petition, directing Respondent No.2 to decide on the petitioner's representation seeking interest refund within eight ... Refund of the pending amount of interest u/s 132B(4)(b) r.w.s. 244A - Petitioner states that the principal amount of seized on 12th November, 2014 was refunded to the Petitioner on 14th November, 2017, but without any interest - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the fact that Petitioner’s representation dated 11th July, 2022 has not been decided till date, the present writ petition along with pending application is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to decide the Petitioner’s detailed representation dated 11th July, 2022 by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within eight weeks. In the event, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Issues:Seeking refund of interest amount under Section 132B(4)(b) and Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition to claim a refund of the pending interest amount of Rs.44,14,010/- under Section 132B(4)(b) and Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the principal amount seized by the Income Tax Department was refunded without any interest after the search assessment was quashed by the Allahabad High Court. It was highlighted that interest at the rate of 0.05% per month is payable to the assessee as per Section 132B(4)(b) after 120 days from the last authorization for search until the completion of assessment. Additionally, interest under Section 244A is payable until the date the refund is granted.The court noted that the petitioner's representation dated 11th July, 2022, seeking the interest refund, had not been decided yet. Consequently, the court disposed of the present writ petition with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks through a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted the liberty to take further legal action if aggrieved by the decision of Respondent No.2. Importantly, the court clarified that it did not comment on the merits of the case, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open for future proceedings.