TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest on the delayed refund of excess amounts paid as tax. 2. The impugned order dated 9 February 2005, while allowing the Revision Application resulting in reduction of the Petitioner's income for the Assessment Year (AY) 1995-1996 by Rs. 12.99 lakhs directed the refund of excess tax paid. However, Petitioner's claim for interest on the excess amount paid as tax on the amount of Rs. 12.99 lakhs was rejected. 3. On 29 March 1996 the Petitioner filed his Return of Income for AY 1995-1996 declaring a total income of Rs. 48.24 lakhs. The same was accepted by the Assessing Officer on 27 September 1996 by intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 4. During the scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for AY 1994-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le income for AY 1995-1996 from Rs. 48.24 lakhs to Rs. 35.25 lakhs and directing the Assessing Officer to rework the tax payable on the aforesaid basis and refund the excess, if any, due to the Petitioner. However, the claim for interest made by the Petitioner on the refund of the excess amount was rejected. This was the ground that the excess amount of tax had been paid by Petitioner on account of his mistake in the original Return of Income filed for AY 1995-1996. 7. On 15 February 2005 consequent to the order dated 9 February 2005 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer determined that excess tax paid by the Petitioner at Rs. 7,50,768/-. We are informed that thereafter the amount of Rs. 7,50,768/- has been refunded to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the date of making the Revision Application till the date of payment of Rs. 7,50,768/-. 10. As against the above, Mr.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Revenue submits : (a) The Petitioner is not entitled to any interest in view of the fact that the revised Return of Income was itself not acceptable due to the bar under Section 139(5) of the Act; (b) As the Petitioner has himself offered the excess amount of income for purposes of tax albeit by mistake, he cannot claim interest on the same; and (c) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd.(supra) is completely distinguishable as the amounts were refunded in that case consequent to an order passed in appeal by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the refund is granted. (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable, and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. (3 & 4)** ** **" 12. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that the Assessing officer could not have entertained the revised Return of Income from the AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcess to that otherwise payable under the law. In most cases the excess amount paid as tax would originate on account of some mistake either on fact or of law on the part of the assessee. Advisedly the Act does not empower the authorities to reject a claim for interest on account of a mistake committed by the assessee. 14. The impugned order does not seek to deny any part of interest on account of delay attributed to the Petitioner in disposal of the proceedings. The Petitioner has averred in the petition that though the application for refund was filed on 3 October 1997 the same was disposed of on 9 February 2005 only on account of the file not being located by Revenue. The aforesaid averment has not been challenged / denied by Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course." (Emphasis Supplied) In the present case there is a statutory obligation to grant interest. However as observed by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. (supra) even in the absence of a statutory provision the State is bound to recompensate the person whose money it has used. 16. In the above vi....