Lajpat Rai v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB ANDHARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5752 of 2009Date of Order: 4.8.2009 Lajpat Rai ...Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana and others ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that Indira Vikas Patras seized by the respondents-departments were notreturned. The petitioner has also claimed interest.It is undisputed thatIndira Vikas Patra were seized from the premises of the petitioner on22.9.1998 and this has been released to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 afterfiling of the instant petition when the proceedings have been completed onthe discussion of appeals with regard to quantum on 31.10.2007 (Annexure CWP No.5752 of 2009 P.4). The aforesaid order has attained finality. In para 1 of the PreliminaryObjections of the written statement filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, theaforesaid position has been explained. This claim made by the petitionerdoes not survive for adjudication. Other claim made by the petitioner is thepayment of interest from the date of maturity of Indira Vikas Patra till thedate of their encashment. In that respect, respondents have stated in para1 of the Preliminary Objection that the petitioner could make his claim forinterest before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Patialaand could also furnish its computation. It further states that any interestpayable to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 would be paid because the quantum additions have attainedfinality with the dismissal of the appeal of the revenue on 31.10.2007.Respondents have further taken the stand that if the petitioner remainsdissatisfied with the amount of interest, which may be awarded andcalculated by Assistant Commissioner, then representation may be filed byhim before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh thereafter. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that theDivision Bench of this Court in CWP No.10223 of 2007 decided on25.5.2009 has awarded interest in such like circumstances, which in turn hasplaced reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SandvikAsia Ltd v. CIT & others (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC). Be that as it may. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of theconsidered view that the instant petition with regard to the release of IndiraVikas Patra has been rendered infructuous. However, with regard to theclaim of interest, the petitioner may make representation to respondent No.3and in case, they are dissatisfied with the award of interest by respondent CWP No.5752 of 2009 No.3, then they can approach the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per the averments made in the written statement. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. ( M.M. KUMAR )JUDGE August 04, 2009manoj ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE