TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (9) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?" Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a company. The assessment years involved are 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessments for both the years were completed under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, before the commencement of the Income-tax Act 1961. However, on account of appeals and reference, the assessments became final only with the decision rendered by this court in 1971. A copy of the judgment was received by the assessee on April 13, 1971. But the Income-tax Officer gave effect to the above order by her orders dated July 20, 1973, determining refund of Rs. 4,63,774 for the assessment year 1958-59 and of Rs. 5,793 for the assessment year 1959-60. The amounts of refund were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elayed granting of refund, it would still not be entitled to interest, was not taken before the Tribunal. For the reasons given in its order, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 244(1) were applicable and the assessee was entitled to interest on delayed refunds. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, strongly relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of 0. Rm. M. Sp. Sv. P. Panchanatham Chettiar v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 579, to show that the assessee was not entitled to interest on delayed refunds in the case before us. Shri Jetley also relied on the judgments of this court in A. J. D' Souza, CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 460 and in Shyam Sunder Kabra v. S. M. Nadkarni [1985] 155 ITR 50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the Supreme Court decision in Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India [1988] 171 ITR 254 also, a claim was made for interest on delayed refund under the old Act. It was held that the assessee was not entitled to interest on delayed refund under the old Act. As regards interest on delayed refund under the new Act, the Supreme Court noted (at p. 260) : "It is not disputed that, in the present case, if the matter fell under section 297(2)(i), the claim for interest on the refund of income-tax becomes wholly insupportable." In Shyam Sunder Kabra's case [1985] 155 ITR 500, which is a judgment of a single judge of this court, again the observations relied upon by Shri Jetley do not advance the Department's case further. Rejecting the arg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanatham Chettiar's case [1976] 99 ITR 579. The question, therefore, is when a case falls under section 297(2)(i), whether section 240 should be read in the manner in which Shri Jetley wants us to read it or whether the two sections should be read together harmoniously. In this context, it may be desirable to mention that a similar situation had arisen before the Supreme Court in the case of Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107. Proceedings in that case related to the assessment year 1960-61. While notice under section 22(2) of the 1922 Act for filing the return was served on the assessee on May 26, 1960, return of income was filed on November 18, 1961, and the assessment was completed on November 23, 1964, under section 23(3) ....