TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he remitted another sum of US $ 99,995 by opening another Account No. 10 of 1985, on August 10, 1985. On September 10, 1985, the Income-tax Department wrote a letter to the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, directing the branch manager not to release the said amount to the petitioner. This was followed by attachment orders dated September 12, 1985, and September 18, 1985, in respect of the aforesaid account. These attachment orders remained in force till June 6, 1986, in respect of the first account and January 9, 1986, in respect of the second account when the money was delivered out of these accounts to the Department to the extent of Rs. 6,20,572 (US $ 50,979.99) out of the second account and Rs. 9,96,532 (US $ 80,744) out of the first account as well as the balance lying in the second account. The petitioner filed an appeal, first to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)") and thereafter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid orders of the Assessing Officer and as a result of the appellate orders, he became entitled to some refund out of the tax realised from the bank from the FCNR/SDR accounts mentioned aforesaid. Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ened by him with the Indian Overseas Bank for a period of 30 days. These accounts had matured on August 16, 1985, and September 9, 1985, respectively. The petitioner is claiming interest with effect from August 17, 1985, and September 10, 1985, onwards. On the other hand, the Department has paid him interest in respect of these accounts starting from June 6, 1986, and January 9, 1986, respectively, that is the dates on which money was actually received by the Department from the bank. The other bone of contention is in respect of the rate of interest. Whereas the Department had paid interest at the rates prescribed under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner is claiming interest as per RBI circulars. His submission is that at the time of deposit of FCNR/SDR the rate of interest was 13 per cent. and 12 per cent. per year to be computed at six monthly rates and he should be entitled to the interest as per these rates. We may state at the outset that Mr. R. D Jolly, learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, had argued that once order dated January 21, 1997, was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his capacity as the appellate authority, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated May 21, 1993, directing the respondents to deposit back the amount in question in the FCNR/SDR accounts of the petitioner along with "interest accrued" thereon should mean the interest which would have accrued on FCNR-SDR accounts of the petitioner. As would be noticed later, after the initial period of one month deposit was over, the petitioner had not given any instructions to the bank to renew the same. The attachment order was made much thereafter. However, the petitioner is claiming interest for this period also on the ground that but for this attachment, the petitioner could have given the instructions to the bank to renew the FCNR-SDR even after the initial period of deposit had expired and on such instructions being given he would have become entitled to the interest from back date, i.e., August 16, 1985, and September 9, 1985, respectively, when these deposits had initially matured. On the other hand, Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, argued that the petitioner was not entitled to any interest from the date anterior to the date when the money was in fact delivered to the Department. His submission was that section 244A of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Indian Overseas Bank and deposited US $ 99,995 for a period of thirty days. 16-8-85 : Deposit in Account No, 9 of 1985 matured. 9-9-85 : Deposit in Account No, 10 of 1985 matured. 10-9-85 : Restraint order was served by the Income-tax Department on the bank. 12-9-85 : Attachment orders in respect of Account No. 9 of 1985, passed by the Income-tax Department. 18-9-85 : Attachment orders in respect of Account No. 10 of 1985, &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income-tax (Appeals) rejecting this plea and claim of interest for this period in the following words : "No interest can be claimed by the petitioner on the basis of a hypothetical claim that by a subsequent action, the Department took away the right of the petitioner to get the deposit renewed retrospectively. It is well settled that while deciding a matter, the court has to answer only the questions which are posed on the basis of actual events and not imaginary or hypothetical possibilities/considerations. This apart, there is another consideration which negatives the claim of the petitioner in this regard. As per the RBI circulars issued at the relevant time, the petitioner was entitled to renew an overdue or matured FDR only within a period of 14 days and not thereafter. Once this period was over, the depositor was required to take a fresh deposit and the old deposit could not be renewed. Only interest at the simple rate could be given for the broken period as specified in the circular. In this connection, I refer to circular of the RBI issued vide reference No. FX.108/88, dated December 15, 1988." In so far as the second period in both the accounts is concerned, i.e., fr....