AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2018 to 13-3-2019, being the period commencing from the date on which the assessee preferred the rectification application to the Assessing Officer till the date on which the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order u/s 264 was passed, as this contrary to the provisions of sec 244A of the Income Tax Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of payment of the self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed the rectification application, as such denial is contrary to the provisions of Sec 244A and the judicial decisions in this regard. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is respectfully prayed that the AO be directed to grant the interest on refund from the date of payment of the self-assessment tax till the date of receipt of the refund. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or withdraw any of the above grounds. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee filed its Return of Income (in short "RoI") for AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 3,95,83,180/- and the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 87,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Ld.PCIT u/s. 264 of the Act, and brought to the notice of the Ld.PCIT, also the later developments that after cancelling the JDA with the builder on 22.12.2017, the vacant land in question was sold to different party in July, 2018 for a total consideration of Rs. 16 crores and the capital gains arising from that event was offered to tax in AY 2019-20. Considering all relevant facts, the Ld.PCIT by order dated 26.11.2018 was pleased to pass order u/s. 264 of the Act with certain directions by holding that the AO erred in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act and revised it as per the terms discussed in his order dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order u/s 264 on 13.09.2019, wherein he was pleased to refund the entire amount of Rs. 92,41,470/-. However, the assessee's prayer for interest u/s. 244A of the Act was not allowed by the AO by holding as under: 6. Interest u/s. 244A of the Act is not allowed since the assessee has originally filed 'Nil' return of income and only after cancellation of JDA on 22.02.2017 filed petition for rectification and claimed refund. Since the delay in claiming the refund is on the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the AO had given effect to the order of the Ld.PCIT by order dated 13.03.2019 granting refund of the tax paid amounting to Rs. 92,41,470/-, but denied interest on refund. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee is entitled to refund only from the date of filing of application u/s. 154 of the Act before the AO i.e. from 20.02.2018 onwards to 13.03.2019 i.e. on the date of the AO gave effect to Ld.PCIT order. The assessee not satisfied with the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A) has contended before us that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of payment of self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. 7. So, the only question that needs to be adjudicated is whether the interest for the period in question could have been denied to the assessee viz., from the date of payment of self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. For that let us have a look at the section 244A of the Act, which the relevant provisions readsas under: Interest on refunds. 244A. (1) Where refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A), the delay in claiming the refund was due to reasons attributable to the assessee and justified the action of AO. However, we do not subscribe to such reasoning since it is a narrow or pedantic view in the facts of the case. 9. In this case, it is to be noticed that the event which triggered capital gain was caused due to the assessee entering into JDA to develop its property on 29.11.2013 with the developer/builder. Since, the JDA/ agreement was not acted upon; and developer backed out and since, the JDA in question was not registered as per law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) i.e. un-registered JDA is not enforceable in law. And when we juxtapose this case law with the JDA in question, then there is no JDA in the eyes of law and therefore, is un-enforceable in law. Thus, it is noted that the assessee offered capital gain of Rs. 92,41,470/- upon mistake of fact or misconception of fact or law, which should be used against the assessee for denying the interest from the date of remittance of Taxes to the exchequer, because State should not be unjustly enriched on an event which didn't exist in the eyes of law. For that we refer to....