DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH WP.No.22862 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 AREVA T & D India Limited Rep.by its Director-Treasury & Taxation Mr.L.V.Srinivasan–For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar Assisted by Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel—-wp allowed good order

[2/29, 08:58] Sekarreporter 1: WP.No.22862 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2019
CORAM
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
WP.No.22862 of 2008
& M.P.No.1 of 2008
AREVA T & D India Limited
Rep.by its Director-Treasury & Taxation
Mr.L.V.Srinivasan
… Petitioner
/Vs/
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-I,
VII Floor, New Bock,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Chennai 600034.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Company Circle I [1],
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Chennai 600034. …. Respondents
PRAYER: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records on the file of the first respondent in C.No.217(5)/CIT-I/264/2006-07
dated 31.03.2008 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to
grant interest under Section 244A on the self assessment tax of Rs.2 crores
paid by the petitioner company.
For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
Assisted by Mr.A.S.Sriraman
For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan,
Senior Standing Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
[2/29, 08:58] Sekarreporter 1: WP.No.22862 of 2008
claimed interest on the amount deposited. This explanation appears
reasonable to me. In my view, the eligibility to interest in the present case is
in terms of 244A(1)(b), which governs the grant of interest in ‘any other
case’, apart from those situations covered under sub-clause (a) being
interest on refund of tax paid or collected at source or paid by way of
advance tax or in terms of Section 199. I am thus of the considered view that
a delay in putting forth a claim for interest, especially in the light of the facts
and events as narrated above, certainly cannot be fatal to the claim itself.
In CIT V. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals ((2013) 358 ITR 291) a three
judge Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the context of a refund
sought under Section 244 A, explained the earlier judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sandvik Asia (supra). While laying down clearly that the
grant of interest has to be strictly in terms of the applicable statutory
provision, the Bench also observes that in a situation where the statue does
not provide for a refund, even under general law, an assessee, in appropriate
cases, has to be compensated for depreciation of capital.
In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted the
amount in question on 28.06.1996. I am thus of the categoric view that it is
entitled to interest in regard to the same, as claimed, in terms of Section 244
A of the Act.
This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
30.09.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
speaking order/ non-speaking order
http://www.judis.nic.inska

You may also like...