Wp/42251/2016 Of Sri Salil Punoose v. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU| DATED THIS THR 25 DAY OF AUGUST, 20106. BEFORE| THR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY_ WRIT PETITION NO.42235OF 2016 (T;IT) BETWEEN: SRI SALIL PUNOOSE9/O SRI M G PUNOOSEAGED ABOUT 66 YRBRARRESIDING AT NO.385, I CROSS—# BLOC, KORAMANGALA|BBNGALURU-560 034. ... PETTTIONBE (BY: SMT.VANI H. ADV.) AND: iTHER INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(2), FIRST FLOOR,|BMTC BUILDING, 800 FEET ROAD,6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 O95.)(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(2), FIRST FLOOR,|BMTC BUILDING, 800 FEET ROAD,6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 O95.) ?)THR COMMISSIONBR OF [INCOMB TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 O95.)(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD,6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,BENGALURU-560 O95.) 3,UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,RBEPRBSEBENTBD BY ITSECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI,NEW DEKELHI-110 OO1.MINISTRY OF FINANCE,RBEPRBSEBENTBD BY ITSECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI,NEW DEKELHI-110 OO1. ~ RESPONDENTS| (SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R-1 & 2)(R-3 .. SERVED) | THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARI. 226 OFTHR CONSTITUTION OF [INDIA PRAYING TO DIRBCT THRRESPONDENTS TO ISSUE REFUND OF TAX AND INTERESTPALLBYTHEPETITIONERTO|AWNKXTENTOF|RS.22,47,886/- CONSEQUENT UPON THE JUDGMENTDATED 17.11.2015 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THISHON’BLE COURT PASSED IN ITA NO.099/2009 VIDEANNEXURE-A; TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAYINTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON THR RBFUND AMOUNTS DUB TOPETITIONER, FROM THE 1 DAY OF APRIL OF THE)ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THER DATE ON WHICH REFUND [IGRANTED, IN TERMS OF SEC.244A OF THE ACT; TODIRECTITHERESPONDENTSTO|PAY,ADDITIONALINTEREST AT 3% P.A. ON THER RBFUND AMOUNTS DUB TOPRTTTIONBR FOR THR PERERIOD BRGINNING FROM THDATK FOLLOWING THR DATE OF EBXPIRY OF THREEMONTHS TO THER DATR ON WHICH RBFUND IS GRANTBDIN TERMS OF SECTION 244A(1A) OF THE ACT AND TODIRECI THERE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COSTS OF THIS WSINCETHRREIS|DERELICTIONOF.DUTYBYRESPONDENTS. © THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THER COURT MADE THER FOLLOWING ORDER Petitioner has approached this court in ITANo.699/2009 challenging the order passed by the ITAT,Bangalore in ITA No.698/Bang/2008 dated 12.6.2009.This court by its order dated 17.11.2015 allowed the|appeal and formulated the substantial questions and| the same has been answered against the revenue and|consequently the order of ITAT was set aside. Learned|counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he|made an application dated 18.1.2016 with a prayer to|give effect to the order passed by this court in ITA|699/2009. The said application for refund of tax paid|has not been considered. 2Learned counsel for the petitioner referred|sec. 153(5) of the Income Tax Act in which three monthstime is fixed for the purpose of refund. Hence impugnedaction of the respondent is contrary to the provisions|referred therein and it is further submitted that 3%)interest fixed under Sec.244A(1A) and 244(A) of the Act|in which interest has to be initially at 3% thereafter at|6% and 3% and the same has to be calculated and thusmakes a prayer for writ of mandamus to _ threspondents to consider the representation for refund ofthe tax collected with interest. 3.Learned counsel for the respondents submittedthat because of the technical reasons the same has not|been done he submitted that if some time is granted,|the same would be repaid. 4Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2Learned counsel for the petitioner referred|sec. 153(5) of the Income Tax Act in which three monthstime is fixed for the purpose of refund. Hence impugnedaction of the respondent is contrary to the provisions|referred therein and it is further submitted that 3%)interest fixed under Sec.244A(1A) and 244(A) of the Act|in which interest has to be initially at 3% thereafter at|6% and 3% and the same has to be calculated and thusmakes a prayer for writ of mandamus to _ threspondents to consider the representation for refund ofthe tax collected with interest. 3.Learned counsel for the respondents submittedthat because of the technical reasons the same has not|been done he submitted that if some time is granted,|the same would be repaid. 4Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5When an appeal is allowed and answered thesubstantial questions against the revenue, it is duty on|the revenue to refund the amount within the statutory|period as it is referred under Sec.1309 of the Income TaxAct. In the instant case, refunding the amount as per|the order of this court and non-considering the|representation dated 18.1.2016 vide Annexure-B is|contrary to law. It is expected of the Revenue, that they|Shall not assign any reasons including technical|reasons for not complying the provisions of the Act and|the orders passed by this Court. It ought to have)communicated the petitioner for the delay. This shall|be done here afterwards. 6.With these observations, petition stands disposedof, directing the respondents to consider Annexure-B for|refund of the amount in the light of the directions|issued by this court in appeal ITA No.699/2009 within aperiod of three weeks from today. It is needless to statethat respondent shall refund the amount with statutory|interest.. R*| Sd/-. JIU DG