Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chander Prakash Jain vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 May, 2018
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9064/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-08-2016
in WT No. 778/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
CHANDER PRAKASH JAIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 07-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Prashant Jain,Adv.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR
Ms. Seema Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In the judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No.566/2011, the Division Bench of the High Court has held as follows:-
“The Kishan Vikash Patras, Indira Vikash Patras, Fixed Deposit Receipts etc. would have earned interest in normal course of things, if they had been revalidated/encashed as per the option available to the Revenue. If the Revenue has failed to do so and the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by money all along continued to remain deposited with the NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.05.08 14:40:49 IST Reason: Union of India and available for utilization by the Revenue itself, we see absolutely no reason in the facts 1 of the case as to why the Revenue may not be asked to pay interest on the aforesaid Kishan Vikash Patras, Indira Vikash Patras, Fixed Deposit Receipts etc., at par with the interest, which money would have earned, on the face value of the aforesaid documents, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act had the investments revalidated/renewed been encashed by the department.” The petitioner claimed exactly the same benefit. It appears, it was also brought to the notice of the High Court that the Deputy Commissioner granted only 6% interest and that was why the petitioner filed the writ petition. However, the High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment held that the petitioner was not able to show the High Court how he was entitled to the compensatory interest. Since, the High Court itself has granted liberty to file a review, we do not propose to deal with this matter any further. Accordingly, this special leave petition is disposed of as follows:
The petitioner may file a review petition within thirty days from today. We request the High Court to consider the review petition in the light of what is stated above and pass orders thereon expeditiously and preferably within a month thereafter.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2