Lashika Motors v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Yawatmal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4402 OF 2021 1.Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra, Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant. 2.Lata W/o Sanjeevkumar Kabra,Age: 57 years, Occu: Business.Age: 57 years, Occu: Business. 3.Parikshit S/o Sanjeevkumar Kabra,Age: 35 years, Occu: Business.Age: 35 years, Occu: Business. 4.Harshit S/o Sanjeevkumar Kabra, Age: 33 years, Occu: Chartered Accountant. 5.Parikshit s/o Sanjeevkumar Kabra HUFAge: 35 years, Occu: Business.Through Parikshit S. Kabra.Age: 35 years, Occu: Business.Through Parikshit S. Kabra. 6.Harshit S/o Sanjeevkumar Kabra,Age: 33 years, Occu: Chartered Accountant.Through Harshit S. Kabra.Age: 33 years, Occu: Chartered Accountant.Through Harshit S. Kabra. 7.Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra,Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant.Through Sanjeevkumar B. Kabra.Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant.Through Sanjeevkumar B. Kabra. 8.Gopika S/o Harshit Kabra, Age: 29 years, Occu: Chartered Accountant. 9.Namita W/o Parikshit Kabra Age: 35 years, Occu: Professional. All R/o at “Gopi” Opp. Amit Apartment,Sardar Patel Road, Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203. 10.Ascentro Advisors & Consultants LLP through its- Partner, Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra,Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax ConsultantHaving its office at:Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax ConsultantHaving its office at: 20, Ambika Market, Station Road,Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203.Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203. 11.Lashika Motors,Through its- Partner,Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra,Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant,R/o at “Gopi” Opp. Amit Apartment,Sardar Patel Road, Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203.Versus1.The Union of IndiaThrough Secretary,Ministry of Finance,New Delhi.2.The Principal Commissioner,Income Tax, Aykar Bhavan,Cantonment, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.3.The Principal Commissioner,Income Tax (Central),2[nd] Floor Aykar Bhavan,Telankhedi Road, Civil Lines,Nagpur, Tq.& Dist. Nagpur – 440001.4.The Joint Commissioner,of Income Tax, Jalna Range,Income Tax Office, Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna.5.The Joint Commissioner,of Income Tax, Central Range,Ayakar Bhavan, Nashik,Tq. & Dist. Nashik.6.The Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Circle-2,Ayakar Bhavan, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.7.The Income Tax Officer,Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.8.The Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Nanded,Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioners (3) wp-4402-2021 9.The Income Tax Officer,Ward-3 Yawatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yawatmal. 10.The Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola...Respondents Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for thePetitioners. Mr. D. B. Gaikwad, ASG for Respondent No.1.Mr. Alok sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to10. … RESERVED ON :07[th] April, 2022.PRONOUNCED ON:22[nd] April, 2022. -JUDGMENT (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.): 1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.Mr. Gaikwad, learned A.S.G. for respondent no.1waives notice. Mr. Sharma, learned standingcounsel for respondent nos.2 to 10 waives notice. 2.By this petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seekorder and directions against respondent no.3 torelease the remaining cash amount of Rs.24,29,000/-as shown in the order dated 17.11.2020 passed byrespondent no.3. The petitioners also seek orderand direction to pay the interest at the rate of 6%p.a. from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 withcompensatory interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from24.12.2019 till 01.12.2020 on the amount of cashreleased of Rs.14,36,000/- by order dated17.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3. (4) wp-4402-2021 3.The petitioners seek an order anddirection against respondents to pay interest atthe rate of 12% p.a. from 01.11.2017 to 01.12.2020on cash amount of Rs.9,35,000/- and interest at therate of 12% p.a. from 01.11.2017 till its finalrealization of the amount of Rs.24,29,000/-. (4) wp-4402-2021 3.The petitioners seek an order anddirection against respondents to pay interest atthe rate of 12% p.a. from 01.11.2017 to 01.12.2020on cash amount of Rs.9,35,000/- and interest at therate of 12% p.a. from 01.11.2017 till its finalrealization of the amount of Rs.24,29,000/-. 4.On 31.10.2017 a search was conducted atthe residence of petitioner nos.1 to 4 underSection 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1961’) and amountof Rs.48,00,000/- alongwith gold jewellery wereseized by the respondents. On 01.11.2017 apanchanama regarding seizure of cash had been madeas per Section 132(B) of the Act, 1961. On29.11.2017 the petitioners filed their explanationexplaining the source of the said cash andjewellery. The petitioners applied for release ofthe assets on 29.11.2017 as per proviso to Section132(B)(1)(i) of the Act, 1961. 5.On 23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019, the respondents accepted the return of income filed bythe petitioners for passing an assessment orderunder Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 in the caseof petitioner nos.1 to 4 and 10 and assessed theincome at Rs.nil. 6.Between 07.02.2020 to 03.09.2020 thepetitioners requested respondents to release theseized cash of Rs.48,00,000/-. On 17.11.2021, the (5) wp-4402-2021 respondent no.3 partly released the cash ofRs.23,71,000/- without there being payment of anystatutory interest as per Section 132(B)(4)(a & b)of the Act, 1961. It is the case of thepetitionersthat,remainingamountofRs.24,29,000/- was retained by respondentsunlawfully. 7.On 26.02.2021, the petitioners filed thispetition inter alia praying for various reliefs.During the pendency of this petition, respondentspartly released cash amount of Rs.23,71,000/-. 8.Mr. Chandak, learned counsel forpetitioners invited our attention to the variousdocuments annexed to the petition and also theassessment order referred to above and would submitthat, as per Section 132(B)(4)(a & b) of the Act,1961, the petitioners are entitled for payment ofinterest as 120 days had already expired on02.03.2018. He submits that, respondents areliable to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,which shall run from the date immediately followingthe expiry of the period of 120 days from the dateon which the last of the authorizations for searchwas executed to the date of completion of theassessment under Section 153-A or under ChapterXIV-B of the Act, 1961. 9.It is submitted that, since the authorityhas not passed assessment order under Section 153-A or under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, 1961, therespondents could not have retained the cash amountof the petitioners at all. It is submitted by thelearned counsel for the petitioners that, there isno provision in the Income Tax Act regarding thepayment of interest as well as compensatoryinterest after the passing of the assessment orderdated 23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019. The respondents,however, cannot deliberately delay the payment ofthe amount due and payable with interest from thedate of the assessment order on the ground thatthere is no provision for payment of interest afterthe date of passing of the assessment order. 10.Learned counsel for the petitioners reliedupon the chart tendered across the bar showing theamount seized by the respondents, interest payablefor the period from 01.03.2018 to 07.12.2020,interest paid from the period 01.03.2018 to13.12.2019 and the balance amount to be paid byrespondents to the petitioner. The petitionershave also shown the interest payable from01.11.2017 to 31.12.2021 i.e. for a period of 50months or till the date of actual release of cash. 10.Learned counsel for the petitioners reliedupon the chart tendered across the bar showing theamount seized by the respondents, interest payablefor the period from 01.03.2018 to 07.12.2020,interest paid from the period 01.03.2018 to13.12.2019 and the balance amount to be paid byrespondents to the petitioner. The petitionershave also shown the interest payable from01.11.2017 to 31.12.2021 i.e. for a period of 50months or till the date of actual release of cash. 11.The learned counsel for the petitionersinvited our attention to the stand taken byrespondents in the affidavit-in-reply and wouldsubmit that, in the present case on the basis ofthe assessment outcome, the Pr. CIT Nagpur videorder dated 17.011.2020 released the seized cash of Rs.23,71,000/-. However, in respect of the M/s.Harshit S. Kabra (HUF) and M/s. Lashika Motors, theproceedings have been initiated under Section 147of the Act, 1961 for reopening of the assessmentwhich is pending for finalization. 12.It is submitted by the learned counselthat, in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit-in-replyit is stated by respondents that, the proposal forthe payment of interest under Section 132-B (4) hadbeen submitted to the Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax, Pune vide letter dated 26.02.2021. On receiptof the approval, the interest on the cash releasedwould be paid to the assessee. He submits that,the respondents cannot withhold the amount payableto the petitioners for alleged future liability.The liability must be existing as per Section 132-B(1) (i) of the Act, 1961. 13.Learned counsel relied upon Section 132-B(3) and would submit that, under the said provisionany assets or proceeds thereof which remain afterthe liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-Section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith madeover or paid to the persons from whose custody theassets were seized. In this case, neither therewas any existing liability nor any liability hadbeen fixed after passing the assessment order dated23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019. The respondents thuscould not have withheld any amount payable to thepetitioners. He submits that, the respondents have (8) wp-4402-2021 accepted the claim of the petitioners regardingpayment of interest, but has not released thepayment. 14.The learned counsel for the petitionersinvited our attention to the order dated 01.12.2021recording that, the Income Tax Department desiredto pay the interest till December 2019 whereas, thegrievance of the petitioners was that, it shouldcalculate the interest till the amount is actuallypaid. The first installment was paid on 17.11.2020and the remainin amount was yet to be paid. 15.The learned counsel for the petitionersinvited our attention to the order dated 30.03.2022passed by this Court and submits that, thepetitioners are entitled to larger reliefs, thepetitioners have restricted the claim for paymentof interest for the period from 03.03.2018 to23.12.2019 as per Section 132-B (4) or Section 244-A(1)(b) of the Act, 1961 with compensatory interestat the rate of 6% p.a. totaling to Rs.5,99,780/-after giving credit of the interest already paid bythe revenue for the period from 01.03.2018 to13.12.2019 in the sum of Rs.2,06,360/-. 16.The learned counsel for the petitionersplaced reliance on the judgment of the Delhi HighCourt in a case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax reported in Laws (DLH)-2007-4-62 andwould submit that, Delhi High Court has awardedclaim for interest in view of the delay on the part of the revenue to pay cash amounts seized after thedate of assessment order till the payment wasreleased after considering the provision of Section132-B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961. 16.The learned counsel for the petitionersplaced reliance on the judgment of the Delhi HighCourt in a case of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax reported in Laws (DLH)-2007-4-62 andwould submit that, Delhi High Court has awardedclaim for interest in view of the delay on the part of the revenue to pay cash amounts seized after thedate of assessment order till the payment wasreleased after considering the provision of Section132-B (4) (b) of the Act, 1961. 17.Learned counsel for the petitioners placedreliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court ina case of G. L. Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax– XI & Ors. delivered on 28.08.2012 in WritPetition (C) No.876/2012and in particularparagraph no.10. He submits that, after construingthe provision of Section 132-B(4) and afteradverting to the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune reported in ITR-2006-280-643 Delhi High Court has held that,absence of an express provision does not absolvetheliability;itonlyreinforcestherestitutionary principle which Courts under Article226 of the Constitution of India are bound toenforce. The Delhi High Court accordingly directedthe revenue to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a.on the balance amount payable from the date ofassessment order till the payment. 18.Learned counsel for the petitioners placedreliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) andwould submit that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in thesaid judgment has clearly held that, person should only be taxed in accordance with law and hencewhere excess amounts of tax are collected from anassessee or any amounts are wrongfully withheldfrom an assessee without authority of law therevenue must compensate the assessee. 19.Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for therespondent nos.2 to 10 on the other hand submitsthat, as per the provisions of Section 132-B (1)(i) the cash can be retained till the completion ofthe assessment, penalty proceeding and Appellateproceedings and till the full discharge of theliability of the assessee. In this Case, on thebasis of the outcome of the assessment order, thePr. CIT, Nagpur vide order dated 17.011.2020released the seized cash of Rs.23,71,000/-.However, in respect of the M/s. Harshit S. Kabra(HUF) and M/s. Lashika Motors, the proceedings wereinitiated under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 forreopening of the assessment. He submits that,proposal for payment of interest under Section 132-B (4) had been submitted to the Chief Commissionerof Income Tax, Pune vide letter dated 26.02.2021and on receipt of the approval the interest on thecash released would be paid to the petitioners. 20.The learned counsel for the revenue placedreliance on Section 132-B (4) (b) and would submitthat, liability of payment of interest of therevenue is only upto the date of passing ofassessment order under the said provision and not (11) wp-4402-2021 upto the date of payment. Learned counsel placedreliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import)Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors. reportedin (2018) TaxCorp(IDT) 114975 (SC) and would submitthat, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Courthas clearly held that, when the words in thestatute are clear, plain and unambiguous and onlyone meaning can be inferred, the Courts are boundto give effect to the said meaning irrespective ofconsequences. 20.The learned counsel for the revenue placedreliance on Section 132-B (4) (b) and would submitthat, liability of payment of interest of therevenue is only upto the date of passing ofassessment order under the said provision and not (11) wp-4402-2021 upto the date of payment. Learned counsel placedreliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import)Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors. reportedin (2018) TaxCorp(IDT) 114975 (SC) and would submitthat, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Courthas clearly held that, when the words in thestatute are clear, plain and unambiguous and onlyone meaning can be inferred, the Courts are boundto give effect to the said meaning irrespective ofconsequences. 21.It is submitted that, if the words in thestatute are plain and unambiguous, it becomesnecessary to expound those words in their naturaland ordinary sense. If the words used are capableof one construction only then it would not be opento the Courts to adopt any other hypotheticalconstruction on the ground that such constructionis more consistent with the alleged object andpolicy of the Act. In applying rule of plainmeaning any hardship and inconvenience cannot bethe basis to alter the meaning to the languageemployed by the legislation. This is especially soin fiscal statutes and penal statutes. 22.It is submitted that, the petitionerscannot be awarded payment of interest orcompensation amount from the date of assessmentorder on the ground of hardship or inconveniencealleged to have been suffered by the petitioners. (12) wp-4402-2021 He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in a case of Ramnath and Co.Vs. Commissioner of Income Taxreported inLaws(SC)-2020-6-32 and would submit that, theHon’ble Supreme Court has taken the similar viewwhile interpreting Section 80-O, Explanation (iii)of the Act, 1961. 23.The learned counsel for the revenue soughtto distinguish the judgment relied by thepetitioners on the ground that, the facts beforethe Delhi High Court and before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India in those judgments were totallydifferent. He submits that, Delhi High Court hadgranted compensation from the date of assessmentorder in view of the gross delay on the part of therevenue in releasing the amount seized after thedate of assessment order. In this case theinterest is paid upto the date of assessment orderby the respondents to the petitioners. 24.So far as judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India in a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) reliedupon by the petitioners is concerned, it is clearthat the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not consideredSection 132-B (4) of the Act, 1961 in the saidjudgment, but had considered Section 214, 240, 244,244(1) and Section 244(1A) of the Act, 1961. Thepetitioners had not challenged the vires of theprovisions of Section 132-B(4) in this petition and thus no additional interest or compensation can beawarded by this Court in favour of the petitioners. 25.Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for thepetitioners in rejoinder submits that, interestunder Section 240 and 244-A is provided ifassessment orders passed is in case of regularassessment whereas under Section 132-B, theinterest would start after expiry of 120 days fromthe date of search and seizure upto the date ofassessment order. 26.It is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioners that, Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) hasclearly held that, if the claim of the respondent-authority is found unsustainable by Court of law,the compensation to such aggrieved party has to beawarded. Even today no assessment order is passedby the respondents in respect of petitioner nos.5to 9 and 11. 27.Section 132(B)(4)(a & b) of the Act, 1961are reproduced as under: 26.It is submitted by the learned counsel forthe petitioners that, Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) hasclearly held that, if the claim of the respondent-authority is found unsustainable by Court of law,the compensation to such aggrieved party has to beawarded. Even today no assessment order is passedby the respondents in respect of petitioner nos.5to 9 and 11. 27.Section 132(B)(4)(a & b) of the Act, 1961are reproduced as under: 4(a).The Central Government shall paysimple interest at the rate of on-half percent for every month or part of a month onthe amount by which the aggregate amount ofmoney seized under Section 132 orrequisitioned under Section 132A, as reducedby the amount of money, if any, releasedunder the first proviso to clause (i) of (14) wp-4402-2021 sub-section (1), and of the proceeds, ifany, of the assets sold towards thedischarge of the existing liability referredto in clause (i) of sub-section (1), exceedsthe aggregate of the amount required to meetthe liabilities referred to in clause (i) ofsub-section (1) of this section. (b)Such interest shall run from thedate immediately following the expiry of theperiod of one hundred and twenty days fromthe date on which the last of theauthorisations for search under section 132or requisition under section 132A wasexecuted to the date of completion of theassessment under Section 153A or underChapter XIV-B. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS 28.It is not in dispute in this case that,the search at the residence of the petitioner nos.1to 4 was conducted by the respondents on 31.10.2017and amount of Rs.48,00,000/- alongwith goldJwellary were seized. The last authorization of asearch was done on 01.11.2017. The petitionersapplied for release of the assets on 29.11.2017 asper proviso to Section 132(B)(1)(i) of the Act,1961. Assessing Officer passed assessment orderunder Section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 in the caseof petitioner nos.1 to 4 and 10 vide assessmentorder dated 23.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 and assessedthe income as Rs.nil. The petitioners accordinglyapplied for release of the seized cash ofRs.48,00,000/- by various letters during the periodbetween 07.02.2020 to 03.09.2020. (15) 29.Admittedly, the respondent no.3 only released cash of Rs.23,71,000/- out ofRs.48,00,000/- without payment of any statutoryinterest as per Section 132(B)(4)(a & b) of theAct, 1961 on 17.11.2021. The period of 120 dayscome to an end on 02.03.2018. The claim forpayment of interest or compensation from the dateof assessment order till payment is opposed by therevenue on the ground that under the said Section132-B(4)(a & b), interest is provided only upto thedate of assessment order and not beyond the saidperiod. 30.The learned counsel for the revenue couldnot dispute that, there was delay in releasing thecash amount of the petitioners seized by therespondents and such payment was not made within aperiod of 120 days from the date on which the lastauthorization for search under Section 132 wasexecuted to the date of completion of assessmentunder Section 153-A or under Chapter XIV-B of theAct, 1961. 31.The question that arises for considerationof this Court is whether this Court can awardinterest or compensation having found delay on thepart of the revenue in releasing the cash amountseized by the revenue from the petitioners whilecarrying out the assessment, though delay wasattributed on the part of the respondents and noton the petitioners from the date of assessmentorder till payment or not. (16) wp-4402-2021 31.The question that arises for considerationof this Court is whether this Court can awardinterest or compensation having found delay on thepart of the revenue in releasing the cash amountseized by the revenue from the petitioners whilecarrying out the assessment, though delay wasattributed on the part of the respondents and noton the petitioners from the date of assessmentorder till payment or not. (16) wp-4402-2021 32.There is no doubt that the said Section132-B (4) (b) provides that, interest shall runfrom the date immediately following the expiry ofthe period of one hundred and twenty days from thedate on which the last of the authorisations forsearch under section 132 or requisition undersection 132A was executed to the date of completionof the assessment under Section 153A or underChapter XIV-B. In our view the said provision doesnot indicate any bar from awarding payment ofinterest or compensation in a situation where Courtfinds any delay on the part of the revenue inreleasing the amount within time specificallyprescribed under the provisions of law for no faultof the assessee. 33.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,Pune (supra) while dealing with the claim forpayment of interest under Section 214 of the Act,1961 made by the petitioner whether there was grossdelay on the part of the revenue ranging from 12 to17 years held that, there is no question of thedelay being 'justifiable' as is argued and in anyevent if the revenue takes an erroneous view of thelaw, that cannot mean that the withholding ofmonies is 'justifiable' or 'not wrongful'. 34.The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered theissue that, this Act provided for payment ofcompensation for delayed payment of amounts due to an assessee in a case where these amounts includeinterest? It is held that, the Act recognizes theprinciple that a person should only be taxed inaccordance with law and hence where excess amountsof tax are collected from an assessee or anyamounts are wrongfully withheld from an assesseewithout authority of law the revenue mustcompensate the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtin that matter directed the revenue to pay interestat the rate of 9% p.a. from the date it becamepayable till the date it was actually paid holdingthe revenue solely responsible for the delayedpayment. 35.Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for therevenue strongly relied upon the observations madeby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.26 ofthe said judgment and would submit that, the awardof interest on the refunded amount is as per thestatutory provisions of law. When a specificprovision has been made under the statute, suchprovision has to govern the field. 36.In our view the principles laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,Pune (supra) would apply to the facts of this case.The respondents were solely responsible for thegross delay in not releasing the cash amount of thepetitioners under Section 132-B (4) (b) of the Act,1961 and thus cannot refuse the payment of compensation to the petitioners for wrongfullywithholding the said amount from the date ofassessment order till payment. 36.In our view the principles laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,Pune (supra) would apply to the facts of this case.The respondents were solely responsible for thegross delay in not releasing the cash amount of thepetitioners under Section 132-B (4) (b) of the Act,1961 and thus cannot refuse the payment of compensation to the petitioners for wrongfullywithholding the said amount from the date ofassessment order till payment. 37.Delhi High Court in a case of AjayGuptaVs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has heldthat, since the payment was made after the outerlimit of the period prescribed under section132B(4)(b) of the Act, 1961, the Petitioner wouldbe entitled to compensation on account of delay forthe subsequent period. The Delhi High Courtfollowed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin a case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-1, Pune (supra) and directed the revenueto pay compensation/damages to the assessee on thebalance sum for the subsequent period at the rateof 9% p.a. In our view, the principles laid downby the Delhi High Court in a case of Ajay Gupta Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after advertingto the judgment ofSandvik Asia Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) appliesto the facts of this case. We are in respectfulagreement with the view expressed by the Delhi HighCourt in the said judgment. 38.The Delhi High Court in a case of G. L.Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – XI & Ors.(supra) after adverting to its earlier judgment incase of Ajay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(supra) and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of (19) wp-4402-2021 Income Tax-1, Pune (supra) has held that there isnojustificationinrefusingtopaycompensation/damages for the delay caused by therespondents revenue in releasing the payment withinthe time prescribed due and payable to thepetitioners and such interpretation cannot beaccepted which would devoid the rights of theassessee. The Delhi High Court accordinglydirected the revenue to pay interest at the rate of12% p.a. on the balance amount for the subsequentperiod i.e. from the date of assessment order tillthe payment. In our view, the said judgment alsowould apply to the facts of this case. We are inrespectful agreement with the view expressed by theDelhi High Court in a case of G. L. Jain Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax – XI & Ors. (supra). 39.In so far as judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in a case of Commissioner of Customs(Import) Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors.(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for therevenue is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe said judgment had considered the question as towhat interpretative rule to be applied whileinterpreting a tax exemption provision/notificationwhen there is an ambiguity as to its applicabilitywith reference to the entitlement of the assesseeor the rate of tax to be applied. In paragraphno.19 of the said judgment it is held by theHon’ble Supreme Court that, when the words instatute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are boundto give effect to the said meaning irrespective ofconsequences. If the words in the statute areplain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary toexpound those words in their natural and ordinarysense. one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are boundto give effect to the said meaning irrespective ofconsequences. If the words in the statute areplain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary toexpound those words in their natural and ordinarysense. 40.In this case, it is not the case ofinterpretation of Section 132-B(4)(b) of the Act,1961 or under the said provision, the Courts wouldrestrict obligation and liability of the revenue topay interest or compensation upto the date ofpayment. The question for consideration of thisCourt raised by the petitioners is whether therespondents can refuse to compensate thepetitioners for wrongfully withholding the cashamount of the petitioners though by the assessmentorder the liabilities of the petitioners weredeclared as nil beyond the date of assessmentorder. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin a case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs.M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors. (supra) thuswould not advance the case of the revenue. 41.In so far as judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in a case of Ramnath and Co. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) relied upon bythe learned counsel for the revenue is concerned,the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgmentwhile dealing with the Section 80-O of the Act,1961 has held that, taxing statutes are subject tothe rule of strict interpretation. There is no (21) wp-4402-2021 dispute about the preposition of law laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. Wedo not propose to expand the scope of Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 in this matter. The Hon’bleSupreme Court and the Delhi High Court have alreadyheld that, the assessee who is deprived of refundof their amount in view of wrongful withholding oftheir amount by the authority cannot be refused tocompensate for such wrongful deprivation of theiramount lying with the authority for no fault of theassessees. 42.Though in this case the petitioners haveprayed for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from01.11.2017 to 01.12.2020 on cash amount ofRs.9,35,000/- and compensatory interest at the samerate from 24.12.2019 till 01.12.2020 on the amountof cash released of Rs.14,36,000/-, the petitionershave restricted their prayer for compensatoryinterest at the rate of 6% p.a. on these twoamounts and also on Rs.24,29,000/-. In our view,though Delhi High court had awarded interest at therate of 9% p.a. towards compensation/damages forthe delayed period, since the petitioners in thiscasehaverestrictedtheirclaimforcompensation/damages at the rate of 6% p.a. for thedelayed period, we are inclined to allow the claimfor the interest by way of compensation/damages atthe rate of 6% p.a. for delayed period alreadyquantified in the chart submitted by thepetitioners. (22) 43.We accordingly pass the following order: A.The respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/damages forthe period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 asprayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. totaling toRs.5,99,780/- after giving credit of theinterest already paid by the revenue for theperiod from 01.03.2018 to 13.12.2019 in thesum of Rs.2,06,360/- within a period of fourweeks from the date of this order. 44.Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaidterms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No Orderas to costs. 45.Parties to act on authenticate copy ofthis order. (S. G. MEHARE) JUDGE (R. D. DHANUKA) JUDGE Devendra/April-2022