TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) Respondents are directed to consider the claim for refund with applicable interest if any, as sought for by the petitioner in Annexures - J and K dated 25.07.2016 and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 2. Some of the facts which need to be noted are, that the respondent is an individual Assessee and claims that TDS was deducted for a sum of Rs. 63,28,432/- from his salary (of Rs. 1,88,88,510/-) by his employer for the assessment year 2008-09. On 31.07.2008, he filed return of income tax claiming credit of the salary TDS for the aforesaid amount. The said return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 31.10.2010. On 22.04.2010, Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued an order, whereby it did not approve the salary of the respondent and revised the same to Rs. 1,26,19,034/-. The differential salary of Rs. 62,69,480/- was paid by the respondent to his employer, who issued revised TDS certificate on 20.12.2010. It appears, on 10.02.2011, a letter was sent by the respondent wherein he has stated he is not able to file revised return due to limitation for filing r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... state that, the appellant is more aggrieved by the direction given by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the order dated 05.07.2018 by which the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent in filing revised return was dismissed with a further direction condoning the delay and to consider the claim of the respondent for refund with applicable interest, which according to Sri. Dilip, shall be more than the principal amount as due and payable to the respondent. He lay stress on the fact that when the respondent himself had delayed the claim of refund, he would not be entitled to the interest as directed to be given by the learned Single Judge. He also stated that, the first letter written by the respondent was only on 10.02.2011 followed by the letter dated 06.08.2013 though the assessment was carried out in the year 2010. He has stated that, the respondent-Assessee had filed a rectification application before the Central Processing Centre (CPC) on 10.02.2011, wherein he had stated that, the reason for not being able to file a revised return was due to limitation in filing a revised return. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the provisions of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Affairs not approving the managerial remuneration resulting in reduction of salary of the Assessee, but still the grant of applicable interest as directed by the learned Single Judge in the facts of this case is not justified. 7. On the other hand, Sri. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Assessee would justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the facts of this case. He stated, the earlier assessment was processed on 31.10.2010. The higher salary was not approved by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The differential salary was paid by the respondent to his employer. The respondent-Assessee filed a rectification application before the CPC on 10.02.2011 and stated, the reason for not able to file the revised return, was due to limitation in filing the revised return; the respondent had rightly sought the refund of the excess tax paid by him to the authorities. He stated, unfortunately, the appellant-Revenue did not respond to the communication sent by the respondent both in the years 2011 and 2013. By the time, the date seeking condonation of delay had expired. Hence, the delay occurred in filing the application for condonation of delay is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year in the present case being 2008-09, the six years started running with effect from 01.04.2009, and expired on 31.03.2015 and in that sense, the respondent could not have filed application seeking condonation of delay after 31.03.2015. The application having been filed only on 25.07.2016, which is beyond the time of limitation as prescribed by the above instruction No.13/2006, the communication dated 05.07.2018, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is justified. Surely in the facts, the respondent cannot be given the benefit of his own wrong though the claim for refund even if genuine and bonafide, but surely the direction for grant of applicable interest, if any, could not have been directed. This is for the reason, the interest is payable for the delay attributed to the opposite party. In this case, despite the instruction dated 22.12.2006 stipulates filing of application seeking condonation of delay, the same having not been filed till 31.03.2015, but only on 25.07.2016, was rightly rejected by the appellants. This is for the reason stated in paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the said instruction which reads as under: "4. No fresh application f....