Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 13]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010

Author: Ram Mohan Reddy

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

 

VVEVV

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,   .

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF IJ*'»EpBRU2f1'{{"it';.::O'4_?.:!)' 1f.)v".V  "

BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTIc;5:_  

WRIT PETITION 1\.I0.137A'9j:0F'r200.9!'fTfIT).E

BETWEEN

 EA'iL1:>1v2i15La:. N~..G. Road.

Sri. Dinakar Ulial. V 1 H    '
Prop. M/s DevchanCE««..COns'Eru<:ti--Ohs'~ "  2 
Aged about 51.y.ea.rs,f _ _  _ E «-- 
Thokkottu Perfnaxs-f;ui*V.  . "  

Mangalore ~5575..O"}7'.:_;,_ 3 V

..PETITIONER
[By Sajia   Lava. Advs.)
AND{U.  ' V ' U ' "

CO!j1''}I''l'.i_ASSiOI'1<i1I'__bf Inc:o'me»'I'e;1x.
C_:R:: E3__u11r3;1ng, };'i~'«E?.lOO1-.

' V ]V.\/i:>11'1ga_lO1'Es  O01 .

H '--{ Es'y.ST'i.'VM3VLA'E:=SEs%Tacha1ia, Adv.)

..RE3SPON D ENT

' ..  Writ. Petition is fiied under Ariicies 226 and 227

  O01' i}'1€'7~=.COE1SU'{.Llf.iOI1 Of lnctia praying 1,0 issue a writ: Of
 £761'-I;.1<:)1"a1*i and :set--asI'de the Ordel" Of the rOsp()nden1 E0 the

'   €XT.Ii"I'}E it is Ewld against. The petitioner in
 5F.N'O.19/CIT/WING/OSWOQ dated }.5.5.2008. vide Anr1exure~

_._A.

THIS P}E7'l'}'l"!ON COP»/IiNG ON FOR I3RL.I"IEARING IN "B'
GROUP '}'I"iiS E-BAYC '}'I'"i{€ COURT MADE "INK i*'OLL,OV\7ING:



 

well--merited, fully justified and  

interference. contends that.:'t.'he.gtrilrcularfinstriuction7.

being an external aid, imposing-._a condition "denying

interest on refund of   
application to C(v)l«1Czl'OIl€'.."'fl:l.'%::'; 'ud'el._ay,  'for 'proper
administration of the   destructive
of the   overrides the
provisions   contended that sub-
  to the facts of the
 of interest on refund since

the _ procle'edi'11gs'V--. relating to refund were delayed for

  re'as~on.s avttributab'i'e'to the petitioner.

«A  Plaiting heard the learned counsel for the

par"tiesf,_ perused the pleading and examined the order

  impugned. the following two questions arise for decision

nfialdngz

{ii Whether the condition to deny interest: on

refund amount due to an assessee under the Act,

M



rcfundv.oi_"excess amount of tax paid by the assessee or
 on h"is__ behalf for any assessment year. The form of
 cl.ai_rn for refund and limitation are prescribed by

___Section 239 of the Act while delay in filing a belated

 

-6-

while admitting an application 
delay in making a claim: 
Section 237 of the   
instruction No.12'/'2vl:):.O3g    and
13/2006 dated.  2 '":Board'. is
inconsistent  Section 244--A

of the 

(ii)  Vx'lé}et:helrg 'indt-l1'c._factts and circumstances, the
 re_spond.e--n_t"'was_ujvust.itied in denying interest on
belated reefundyctlaimed for the assessment year

 22 IA995--96;._y2bvy  order impugned?

22  237 of the Act provides for claim of

return for refund claim in cases of genuine hardship

could be condoned by the 'Board under Section 119 of

M



 

n
___;

the Act. Interest on refund  admissible sLib'1»--se<?ti:on. (I)

 

of under Section 2-ri4~A of the Act. while  

invests in the Chief Con1missi'oner .or1,Comi*ni_ssiVonerV;'. 21 7.

 graze./air  

jurisdiction to deny interest: for"the._perio<:i=;inrefunciv, $015

reasons attributabie to the'a.s"sessee§'~ ._  

8. The iini1'ta'ti.on_to gla-im for refund in
respect: of the.'--asses:stri'ent  i9'9.3}96, as in the case
of the p.e:ti:t.iO"?7Ift_3:lT*;_ vi.rfc:1s:1'3...i.C}';j§f.'l»99T?' in accordance with
SeCt'ioi1 in the statute book. prior
to ainendi'inei'1"i; E537'  'No.18/2005. The petitioners

ciagini uwhezi'  on 8.9.1997, was delayed by five

   seven days which was sought to be

i"'~.e'ondoIied-._  filing the appiication on 2i.O9.i998

inu\}oi;i'nAg.S'eCt:ion i i9{2){b) of the Act. showing sufficient

2  ., AALi'é1tiS€.

9. Section 119, as existing prior to the

amendment by Act 23/2004. reads thus:



AHA

""119. Instructions to  :"

a_uthorities.-----(l] The Board 

to time. issue such o1'ders. if1s{'.1*'s«1(:ti0n s--.g;3:;€I;w_ 

direcI':i0r1s to other I:r1c0r11Ve«V_'l':;:xhautheriiies  V'

it may deem fit for ..prope'1' e1c1V.er_1}1;'11_is"€..1':"z':-'1't.i~z)r':1
of this Act, and suc'_::}"1"., aaV:11019itie$:V.anvéd an
other persons.;:'_empl§ye(;lVL"11:1afihe exechhon of
this Act, shah V   such
orders.'.iii'11.$t1"L;L'eVfie:i1Vés  of the

 

 P1'"Ov'i~cife._vcl t.hat _h'0.. sL:eh. dfders, instructiorls or

"'-:1ii'e(ét'i<)11' :-2. f$.ha1i_  'i,§i:.s:,1ed----~»

_{-:1.) x x X ..

(2) V%g?'i{h0L1t. prejudice to the generality of the

.. figl-egoing powerm

(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirabie
01" expedient so to do for avoidi:1g genuine

hardship in any case 01* class of Cases, by

M



-9-
general or speeiai order, authorise any
income 'i'a.x aL1t.hoi.-it,y. not being a 
Commissioner (Appeals) to 
application or claim for any 
deduction. refund or anymother  _
this Act after the  
spe(:i;fied by or undei' th4i;:~:A"Act 
such application of  ariciV..(.ie'a1

same on merits in E-i('C.'..ti§)I':A.Ci'c1_I'1'C_,€ with' i:e1w;_.'3

 A 'p~;?,ain'i»re'adi'1';g of the aforesiated si:atuio1'y

provisioim-«..it'visVL}eyoi1'd"hVcavi} of doubt that the Board, is

eifipowered Hf}!G1'1 ' time to time to issue
 ofdefe _/ ti J;I;i3,{_3fiQl'1S / iilstructions to income Tax

A__uthoriiie«s;iV' as it: may deem: fit: for proper

adm'i;1i'1atrai.io1a of the Act; and more particularly under

  (b) of SLibvS€CTLiOI1 (2) of Section 119, for avoiding.

I/, .

is . . . . ti"
__:genui13e hardship 111 any cirase, authorise 3any income

"Fax authority to adrzlii. an appimatiori or claim for any

exemption, "deduction refund or any other relief under

U4



-311

the Act after the expiry of the period  or

under the Act for makirig such 'c1];)pli(?'c'1tlC)1'1'Hi')I'vCl£1ii'fi.é3:11ClV4_

deal with the same on merits»'i'n~aettordantxé with law.'

The statute does not indicate "vpes-tigirig a'j.duri.Sdief:_io.11'in

the Board to issue instruetiopris in. is
stated in Sectionr1_l9(2}['b}:l_:'itu""i_s well" settled that

ihstructions/circulars/.guid-el'ines_"ai=e'binding to the

extent they, ere':~nc)t§;Aineorisistent. the provisions of
the A(f?.".'~ ., 
'Il_.4' tilt' is  said that the power of the

Bojardis en'larged rvhere the provisions of the Act bar

 i'ii1AAc;o'm.e Tax authorities from entertaining any

 _ap_plit:'at_io'i*1wQ2"for claim of any exemption, deduction,

refuneli o'r":a11y' other reliefs due under the Act for the

V "re.as0Vn that the time limit specified For the making of

'At-Vstieh application or claim has expired. Thus, the Board

" is empowered to authorise the Commissioner or Income

Tax Officer to admit such application or claim even after

N



-17

instruczrtion or direction camiot override the

the Act which would be destnictive  kriovvim 

principles of law as the same:=_woLild} rea'1ly"--ahio.i;1itcto

fivinf owers to a dele'f:3{te_d aLit~ho'i'i.t f.;o"even altmeiicllli.

the provisions of the law er12icted.by the 

13. ThlZ'S viewed",:fSea;tri.on.7_fauthorises the

Board to issue i'1<ystr1..ic:i-iolrislLind directions to the

Iricome'"l72iX1;au'th;oi"it*ies.'forpropel' admiriistration of the
Act'. V";»'»_\ €:irc'ul3;r:is. adn'iAitifc_dly executive in character and
has to bt3glS'SL1(3'(_'l in  of functioning of the Act and

 object'v---*e--««that the provisions of the Act are

V  _4adn1.ii1ist'ere(i. The Board may. in issuing a

'c'ir'cula_If."clarity a point of ambiguity in any provision of

law." Such clarification is not binding upon the Courts.

 it c_an.i1(3t also run couni.er to the legisisative provisions

?and create rights or oblige-itioris which are contrary to

the statute. instructions really supplant the law and

not supplement. the law. lt is settled law tliat cir s

 



cannot impose any burden on the tax payer but can

deviate from the provisions of the Act if it is ben.efi.eial to

the assessee and has mitigated or relaxed{the'vi?ig_or-_.ofV

the law. V b

14. Section 244 A of the
of interest on refunds ar1d»re..z;1ds tlznss V l V --

(Prior to amendl:fne1'1t_»   of

_ on on refundss (1) Where
  becomes due to the
 Act, he shall, subject to
'V the prlov£.soivon_s. of this section, be entitled to
 in addittion to the said amount,

  thereon calculated in the
 maI1r1e1". 1'1amely:~

ell  X X X

 .. orb}  xxx

{2} If the proceedings resulting in the refund
are delayed for reasons attributable to the

assessee. vt.»f1et.her wholly or in part, 

 



iii

period of delay so attributable to 
be excluded from the period for  
interest is payable, and where ai-ny"questir>r';.VV
arises as to the period:=.A1to:-hie} 
shall be decided byythe Chief:Comrri.iiss'ionerA."
or Commissioner  

shall be final. 
(3) x X x 

(4) The provisi.oI1s-  t'l1ois_set:tio'n' shall apply

in i'espeé1jt»i'oi'assessh1er1t,_s"forthe assessment

 year" on the 151 day of April,

X1989, and §§'L1bSeqt£eI1t assessment years."

15"). hi it tihus Clear that. interest. on refunds

A upayable _Wb,_en an amount is due to the assessee under

 ._  to exclusion of the period of delay

o€:t:as.ioned and attributable to the assessee as may be

* decided by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of

 ineome Tax whose decision is final. The statute

'loornpels the denial of interest on refund if the

p1'0(;:eedi1'1gs resL1lt,i1'1g in the refund are delayed for

 



_E.'1

reasons aitribiitable to the assessee. The_;v'p1'0\g'isi0'_a_4is

made applicable to £1SS€SSIIi€I1tS.'"f0'1'«::'~ti;i'€"_y'€:a1"fi

Commencing from 1.4. 1989.

16. Having not.i(7ed"'vi«i.fi1.e statutmfy 'proixisions,

indisputedly the  iii'"'e'x.é;1'c:iS-<3' of its jijrisdiction

under Section 1 19 of tfi-eAV_A,iiti  670 dated

26.10.93
,    'Oificer to admit
appiicatiéii  making a belated
refu1: id9'"9V    a resuit of tax
 and advance tax where

such. refu1id._d0e:5 net exceed Ten Thousand upto Rs. ijalihvi' with approvai of Chief Commissioner of 1 any assessment. year. Admittedly, there w"a_s r1_0'cdi'1dii.ioI1 to deny interest on refund arising out ii a belated claim.

17. The beiaied refund Ciairn of the petitioner

-":bei11g Rs.2i41_.505/-- made on 8.9.i997 and an application 21.9.1998 to eoncioiie the delay of five A (1 months and seven days, was required to be Cons'idered and orders passed thereon by the Boewd reasonabie time. However. the__B.oard _ps'sVse.o§»ai1V'_order« "

dated 8.1.2007 rejecting the rightly setmaside in WP fort fresh consideration by ordevr--dtit.ed"-2A8.1r2O0.8.,f§ I8. Undoubted.ly:."_~.th.e_fi£%o2ird instruction No. 12 /20033.'; _ £30; 1 i"e}atting to procedure for condone delay in eiaimirig rei'tmi%1, thi'e-.,Cf'hiei;Htliommissioner for Income Tax in claim from Rs. One Lakh toyfixire Eakhs."' to denied of interest on the belated iancfithat. however, the instructions would not cover zfises prior to assessment year 199697. Yet again the Board issued another set of ismsjtruction bearing No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006, Verihaneing the eons_ide1*atior1 of refund limits upto Rs.5O ' "iakhs by Corr.
-.
J z;
20. Therefore. in a proceeding to c,}.ai.{n..'re'f1ifid under Section 237, filed in time K Section 239 of the Act. 1*esuitin§ reasons attributable to the assessee; whetii.erV'Vwho;1iy'iof in part. the period of deiay'V'Vi'is_Ri::)_ beV"e:»:cVluVded':§from the period for which i11te_i"e--st decided by the Chief CO1'I11'I11'S$'iOI1€'I" ()f,:I_I'l.C()iTi'ld -iprovided under Sub--Sectioni_.: s;§;:mi':i "t'h'c§ Act. proceeding to ciaim refund undei*'~_Secti'onV'23s?'d the time prescribed by Section on the filing of an application ..Sec1;AiVoI'1~------i«19(2](b] to condone the deiay, and V *re's'a.iti-nig':.i'i*:._:Vrefund. is deiayed for reasons attributable 1;o"":hev--..'asse'?ssee, whether whoiiy or in part, the period of *d:3__lay to be excluded from the period for which
7.iVn'te:1rest is payable under Sub--Section (2) of Section N " '"2«<i4--A of the Act. M .iii
22. Sub-Section (4) of Section _.iih~e section applicable to assessments for..the:"vass.essnief1:.V year commencing from I_.~€i.1989.
relating io denial of i11t,e.t*e:c3?_t on 9' --rv_e'i°ur1d:a*''i'r1Apespfbcti of; belated claim, being fully i:og;gn.:r1 by'sL1'b'~'secifiion (2) of Section 244%. of ti1e_:Actt;.' it/;_'cant:of'~ibut be concluded that the 'Board.'. exereisii1»gVa.A' j'1,1ris§li:(§ti.oi1 under section 119 of Act could 9 fiot have issued ir1stru_(_:_t:VioI'is'/'oifgiversg/dii;eet:1oi1s/eircuiars, imposing a c0r1d:'i__tior_1-- Vde:13Iii'1'g>['*i;i'éerest on refund, so as to suppierneni {he law.» 9 Slouch a condition in derogation of the§'ste1iute,i1ot 'for a proper administratiori of the . Act' . _v 'F.haff'e.o13ditior1 by way of instruction contained in 13/2006 overricies sub-section (2) of Seitiiiori 2944~A of the Act and is in exe1'(:ise of a power 2 Airiiotvested in the Board. and hence inconsistent. The first question is answered in the affirmative. M .720.
was deiayed for reasons attributable to the assessee so as to exclude the period from filing the application to condone the deiaj~.in' belated return, upto 1.7.2008';:'wheneVé"._ghe'refii:iid'V'Vyva«s adjusted against the petiti.on_er's income dikes f"or°thea assessment year 1994-95.
25. Reiianee 'p1;_aeed.u* ;upon}._the decision in GUJARAT COMMISSIONER or 1NcoMe:;%rAx. 'rm 396] by the Assessing Authority t'heV"'petiifi'o'r1er interest on the refund elairnbgd/«theorder_:irr1_:f5'tig1r1ed, in my considered opinion, is 'fuI1ft1"101.i"1'f a;)p.i.ieation'°'oi" mind. i say so because, their A of the""Ghjarat High Court, having regard to the faets" of the ease. held that the Board was not V is jiistified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by it the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained. more particularly when the Elm returns could not be filed in time due to of the Officer who was looking afterthe taviati-dli_i»rnatters of. the petitioner therein. Their loirdshipls lu.rt,'h:e1' tiiat. the phrase 'genuine hardi:i;hli'pf in lSeetion T' Q._{Q.}£b]..3of Act should have been eons_t:r1:1'ecl 'libera1lly';__'l'h:it decision is not in relation to"dleonyi-ngi}li}ote'r.est.l on belated refund but a case o;fiI'«::_i'us2;illl'to' eoiidon_e t.hedlelay in filing the belated 7o:rder,_'inij;§ugnVedvfin so far as it relates to denying. 'intereetl*:}n"~.tl"re 'amount. of refund by merely foilowingéthe imposed in the Circular 670 ci.;i%i_¢ai'«26.1'o;ii.993_read with Instruction No.12/2003 2 ;'d.:;ttedv'80.i:l'{)_,_2003 and 13/2006 dated 22.12.2006 is =ocomrai3;r*;it<§o::iaw, arbitrary and unsustainable. The 2""

qnest'ion is E111SW€i'E3Cl in the iaegative.

27. in the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated l5~O5~2008 Annextn*e«"A" in so far as it rela1:es to denying int.ei.'est on Rs.2,4l.50.3/-» beiI e