TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ures and are therefore, being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) 2470/2006 (Pradeep Misra v. UOI & Ors.) are however being taken into consideration. 2. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to the respondents to pay the interest which they have lost due to not handing over of Kisan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras (hereinafter referred to as 'KVPs and IVPs' respectively), which remained lying seized with the respondents. 3. The background facts are that on 21.01.1997, a search was conducted at the residential and business premises of the petitioner under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), during which so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, invited the Court's attention towards the above-referred letters/representations sent to the Assessing Officer and submitted that despite persistence, the petitioner could not get back the KVPs & IVPs along with other seized articles/documents till 10.01.2005, which has resulted in loss of interest apart from unabated anxiety, if not harassment. 9. Learned Senior Counsel contended that such stubborn attitude of the respondents has violated the petitioner's right to get interest, which he would have earned on the proceeds of the KVPs & IVPs on their maturity, if the same were handed over to him in time. 10. While claiming interest, he navigated the Court through the chart (Annexure-O), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submitted that if the date of deposition of the demand (as per the letter written by the petitioner) is taken to be 23.12.2003, there is no substantial delay, as the KVPs & IVPs were handed over to the petitioner on 10.01.2005. He argued that since there is no inordinate delay, the petitioner's claim for interest as given in Annexure-O is untenable in law. 15. Mr. Aseeem Chawla, learned Senior Counsel, in rejoinder submitted that it was incumbent upon the Department to have encashed the KVPs & IVPs and keep the amount as an advance tax, but since the same was not done, a direction be issued to the respondents to pay the interest as prayed. 16. He relied upon the judgement of Allahabad High Court, rendered in the case of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as directed by the Settlement Commission. Having not done so, the Assessing Officer had defied the order of the Settlement Commission for no rhyme or reason. 22. On sifting through the record of the case, we find that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner (W.P.(C) Nos. 4581-83/2004 by an order dated 27.07.2004, the respondents were directed to carry out the direction given by the Settlement Commission within four weeks. Said order was however stayed on 20.08.2004 and ultimately on 26.10.2004 the Court ordered that the articles/assets other than jewellery be released within a week. 23. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II in the order releasing assets dated 27.12.2004 made a reference of the High Court order dated 20.08.2004 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date of deposition of the demand/settlement amount up to the date of release of the KVPs & IVPs) and not from the date of maturity as prayed. 27. In case the interest rates of KVPs & IVPs as on 01.01.2004 is not available, the Assessing Officer shall take the corresponding rates of National Savings Certificate (NSC). The interest shall obviously, be calculated on the maturity value of KVP (not on the face value). 28. At this juncture, Mr. Aseem Chawla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for interest not only up to the date, when the KVPs & IVPs were released, but even for interest on such interest. 29. In response to the petitioner's request for interest after 10.01.2005, Mr. Ruchi....