2018 (6) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e entitlement of the appellant became by virtue of order passed by Hon'ble I.T.A.T. on 28.10.2005. As per order of Ld. CIT(A) & Hon'ble I.T.A.T., appellant was entitled to refund out of seized amount. The appellant, therefore, became entitled to interest u/s 234B(4). 2. For that Ld. AO for some reason or the other delayed the refund of accrued interest u/s 34B(4) abnormally. Even though the interest became due by November, 2005, it was paid on November, 2012. Appellant claimed interest on delayed payment of refund. Ld. AO denied the payment of interest on the delayed refund. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Ld. AO. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) placed his decision based on some judgments enumerated in the order of asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the last issue raised on behalf of the assessee, namely, the payment of compensation for the inordinate delay in the payment of interest under Section 132 (b) (4) and Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. This Court may record that in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court had held the assessee as entitle for interest on the failure of the department to pay the interest under the Income Tax Act within time permitted. But the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Flouro Chemicals (2012) 348 ITR 319 (SC) in paragraph Nos. 5,6, 7 and 8 has held as follows: "5. Since there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding the amount due to the assessee this court had tho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same not an interest on interest. In view of above, we are of the opinion that this Court has to examine as to whether there has been unexplained inordinate delay in the matter of payment of interest within the statutory period by the department or not. From the facts which have been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that the assessee became entitled to payment of interest at least for the pre-assessment period from the date his appeal by CIT was allowed and the liability was reduced to 3,15,415/- only. This payment of interest has been denied to the assessee without any justifiable cause even after expiry of 9 years from the date interest was payable. Similarly, we....