TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith a delay of 60 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 60 days condoned. 5. Ground nos. 1 to 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of the ld.CIT(A) in not granting interest on refund u/s. 244A of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the issue are that the assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Singapore and is a non-resident for the purposes of Income-tax Act. The assessee earned income from certain construction projects in AY 2012-13 and approached the Authority for Advance Rulings (hereinafter referred as "AAR") in relation to taxability of above said income. The assessee did not file its return of income as the application was pending before the AAR on the due dates for filing the return of income. The AAR held the income earned from execution of projects was taxable in India vide its order dated 16.08.2016 and the assessee filed return of income for AY 2012-13 on 04.03.2017 claiming refund. Further, the assessee also fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the condition stipulated in paragraph 6(ii) of the circular applies only to cases where the power to grant a refund has been delegated to the Pr.CCsIT/ CCsIT/ Pr.CsIT/ CsIT. He referred to para no.7 of the said circular and submits that the delegation of power referred in paragraph 2 shall apply only to applications pending as on 01.10.2024 and since the Hon'ble High Court of Madras condoned the delay vide its order dated 22.01.2024, he vehemently argued that placing reliance by the ld.CIT(A) on such circular is not justified. He placed on record the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd and drew our attention to the para no. 32 & 34 of the said decision. He submits that there was no intentional delay on part of the assessee in claiming the refund, as application before the AAR and consequential application before the CBDT took time in filing the application for refund. He submits that the ratio held by the Hon'ble High Court is applicable to the facts on hand and prayed to grant interest on refund. Further, alternatively he submits that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s. 244A of the Act for the date of filing of appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due date for filing ITR for AY 2013-14 16.08.2016 Order passed by AAR holding income in question is taxable 04.03.2017 Return of income filed 10.03.2017 Application for condonation of delay filed u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 11.04.2017 ROIs filed for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 claiming refunds 03.11.2023 Order passed by CBDT refusing to condone delay in filing ROIs for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 22.01.2014 Order passed by High Court of Madras in WP Nos. 34254 & 34256 of 2023, condoning delay in filing ROIs, and directing the AO to process belated ROIs filed 12.11.2024 Letter from CIT (International Taxation) asking assessee to filed fresh ITRs 26.11.2024 ITRs for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 again filed 02.06.2025 Orders u/s. 143(1) r.w.s. 119(2)(b) of the Act granting the refund but denying statutory interest u/s. 244A. 28.11.2025 Impugned orders of the CIT(Appeals) 10. On perusal of the above chart, showing the chronological events relevant to AY 2012-13, we note that the due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act is 30.09.2012 and the assessee filed return of income on 04.03.2017, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed claim of refunds. The said circular is on record and on perusal of the same, we note that para no.6 explains that the belated application for supplementary claim of refund (claim of additional amount of refund after completion of assessment for the same year) can be admitted for condonation provided other conditions as referred above are fulfilled, therefore, in our opinion, the para 6 of said circular is not independent as it is to be read with paras 1 to 5 therein. It is noted, para 6, further explains, the powers of acceptance/rejection within the monetary limits delegated to the Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT/Pr.CsIT/CsIT in case of returns claiming refund and supplementary claim of refund would be subject to the further conditions mentioned therein i.e (i), (ii) and (iii). Thus, we find no merit in the arguments of Ld.AR in contending the non-applicability of para 6 and are, therefore, rejected. 13. We note that in the present case, we find no supplementary claim of refund which is in addition to the claim of refund after the completion of the assessment. Admittedly, clause (i) of para 6 is not applicable to the facts on hand. Clause (ii) of para 6 explains no interest will be admissibl....