TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge benefit tax return for the assessment year 2006-07 on 29.11.2006 declaring fringe benefit value of Rs. 2,87,06,054/-. It was processed and a rectification order was passed on 26.08.2008. The petitioner took the stand that the value of contribution to statutory pension fund cannot be considered as a perquisite and therefore, cannot be regarded as fringe benefit under the Income Tax Act. In this regard, an order adverse to the petitioner was passed on 22.02.2012. Questioning the same, the petitioner went before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellate authority declined to interfere with the order passed by the assessing authority. Questioning the same, the petitioner moved the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing ITA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the impugned order came to be passed once again rejecting the petitioner's request for refund. The rejection order dated 07.08.2019 is challenged in this writ petition. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and wanted this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax department submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference and wanted this Court to sustain the same. 5.I carefu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by the competent authority, as far as possible. 4.In a case where refund claim has arisen consequent to a Court order, the period for which any such proceedings were pending before any Court of Law shall be ignored while calculating the said period of six years, provided s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of refunds. iii.The refund has arisen as a result of excess tax deducted/collected at source and/or excess advance tax payment and/or excess payment of selfassessment tax as per the provisions of the Act. 7.In the case of an applicant who has made investment in 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 issued by Government of India opting for scheme of cumulative interest on maturity but has accounted interest earned on mercantile basis and the intermediary bank at the time of maturity has deducted tax at source on the entire amount of interest paid without apportioning the accrued interest/TDS, over various financial years involved, the time limit of six years for making such refund claims will not be applicable. 8.This c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tentions of the learned standing counsel to be sustainable. I am not in a position to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. But at the same time, I must note that the first respondent has not at all taken note of the spirit of my order dated 12.06.2019. I had stated that if the petitioner was not liable to be pay any fringe benefit tax, then, the department ought to have refunded the same. The income tax department being an arm of the State is bound by the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the department is bound by the principles of fairness and reasonableness. Of course, I am conscious that any taxing statute will have to be construed strictly and there is no sco....