Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Director Of Income Tax vs Mitsubishi Corporation on 4 July, 2006
ORDER
1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 25-11-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5292/Delhi/2004 and 1797/Delhi/2004 pertaining to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, respectively. Since the question involved in both the assessment years is identical, we are dealing with the facts pertaining to assessment year 2002-03.
2. The assessee initially filed its return of income on 31-10-2002 claiming a loss of Rs. 2.13 crores.
3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 10-3-2003 and along with the revised return claimed refund of a sum of Rs. 4.73 crores on account of excess taxes withheld at source (TDS). Out of this Rs. 1.4 crores was claimed by the assessee for itself and the remaining for its consortium partner Rotem Industries.
4. On a technical objection being raised by the Income Tax department on 31-3-2004, the assessee filed another revised return claiming the amount of Rs. 4.73 crores in its own name as per the TDS certificates for the said amount. There is no dispute with regard to the refund claimed by the assessee, and the question that is required to be considered is with regard to the period for which interest is payable on the tax credit in terms of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
5. According to the assessee, interest should be payable from the 1st day of April of the assessment year, which translates to 1-4-2002 until the date of payment, i.e., 19-7-2004. On the other hand, according to the revenue, the interest was payable for the period from 1-4-2004 till 19-7-2004.
6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has accepted the contention of the assessee and has directed payment of interest for the period from 1-4-2002 onwards till 19-7-2004.
7. Being aggrieved, the revenue has preferred this appeal.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the revenue, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference and no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
9. The Tribunal has indicated and considered three reasons while accepting the contention of the assessee. It has been held that firstly, the return was filed, admittedly, within the time prescribed by law and no delay can be said to be attributable to the assessee. Secondly, the Tribunal has relied upon CBDT Circular of 11-4-1955, where it is mentioned that although the responsibility for claiming refund rests with the assessee, the officers of the Income-tax department must not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. Without commenting on the correctness of this reason, it only needs to be mentioned that the assessee did, in the present case, file a revised return for claiming-tax credit on account of TDS well within time and as such was aware of its rights. The third reason given by the Tribunal, which is really a question of fact and on this the Tribunal has come to a conclusion after examining the material on record, is that no delay in the proceedings has been caused by the assessee or is attributable to the assessee. In the course of the proceedings the department had raised certain technical objections and these were dealt with by the assessee within time and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was responsible for causing any delay as envisaged under Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
10. A conclusive finding of fact that the assessee is not responsible for any delay in the proceedings does not give rise to any question of law, particularly if the conclusion is not perverse. Learned Counsel for the revenue has not been able to show any perversity in the view expressed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessee took all the steps that it was required to take within the time prescribed by law. Ex facie, therefore, there has been no delay in the proceedings, much less any delay attributable to the assessee.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
12. Dismissed.