Delhi High Court
D.C.M. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: [1991]189ITR509(DELHI)
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner filed a nil return. The petitioner had claimed certain deductions on account of various allowances which were admissible. In appeal, the quantum of deductions allowed was increased considerably. The appeal was decided by the Tribunal on July 1, 1981.
2. In respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the assessment had been made on September 18, 1976. The income assessed was Rs. 8,47,10,120. The contention of the petitioner is that, after the Tribunal decided the appeal in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax officer did not pass the revised order giving effect to the Tribunal's order and, as a consequence thereof, the carry forward of the unabsorbed losses/allowances was not computed and if the order had been rectified by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1971-72, the assessed would have been able to claim adjustment for the assessment year 1973-74 immediately thereafter. In actual fact, the Income-tax Officer gave effect to the Tribunal's order after 29 months in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 and, thereafter, the higher amounts of unabsorbed allowance carried forward was set off for the assessment year 1973-74 and, in respect of that year, the income was reduced from Rs. 8,47,10,120 to Rs. 4,32,33,083.
3. The claim of the petitioner before us is for interest on Rs. 57,03,175 which was the enhanced amount of unabsorbed allowance as a result of the Tribunal's order.
4. In our opinion, neither section 240 nor section 244 of the Income-tax Act are applicable to the present case. The Tribunal's order was only in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 and no refund is actually due to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 pursuant to the order having been passed by the Tribunal. It is true that the Income-tax Officer should have given effect to the Tribunal's order in respect of the assessment year 1971-72 at an early date and if this had been down, the unabsorbed allowances would have increased and they could have been set off for the assessment year 1972-73 but, for the year 1973-74, a fresh order would have been passed to give effect to the higher amount of unabsorbed allowance and it could be consequent to such a revised order for the year 1973-74 that refund would have become due.
5. There is no claim for any interest on account of any order having been passed in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, whatever interest was allowable as a consequence of the order passed for that year 1973-74 under section 244 of the Act has been allowed and paid and there is no dispute with regard to this. We do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the said provision of the Act comes into play in the present case on account of delay on the part of the Income-tax Officer in giving effect to the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1971-72. Section 244 of the Act would apply when there is a direct nexus between the order in appeal and the payment of refund.
6. In view of the above observations, the petition is dismissed accordingly.