GOYALS INTERNATIONAL,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2707/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Goyals International, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, concerning the denial of interest on a tax refund for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The primary issue was the period for which interest on the refund was denied under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had entered into an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and subsequently paid self-assessment tax. After the JDA was not acted upon and eventually cancelled, the assessee sought a rectification of the capital gains tax paid, which was initially denied. The Tribunal's decision reversed the lower authorities' denial of interest on the refund for the period from the payment of self-assessment tax to the date of the refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107316 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Singh Maini vs. CIT, Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT, UCO Bank vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. MURALIDHAR; F.C.A; J. PRABHAKAR; F.C.A
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revised return; Capital Gains; Revision of order
• Section: 154; 143(1); 234B; 244A; 264

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’\u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ीएबीटी. वक , \u000bाियकसद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ीजगदीश, लेखासद\fक ेसम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2707/Chny/2024 िनधा\u0010रणवष\u0010/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Goyals International, No.3, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai -34. [PAN: AAAFG2141C] (अपीलाथ\u000f/Appellant) (\u0010\u0011यथ\u000f/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u000f क\u0013 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. S. Muralidhar, F.C.A & Mr. J. Prabhakar, F.C.A \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f क\u0013 ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाईक\u0013तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.01.2025 घोषणाक\u0013तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 23.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2014-15. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is denial of interest on refund u/s. 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: The only issue involved in this appeal is denial of interest on refund u/s 244A for a part of the statutorily eligible period. 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on refund only for the period from being the period commencing from the date on which the assessee preferred the rectification application to the Assessing Officer till the date on which the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order u/s 264 was passed, as this contrary to the provis Income Tax Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the da the date on which the assessee filed the rectification application, as such denial is contrary to the provisions of Sec 244A and the judicial decisions in this regard. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is respectfully prayed that the AO be directed to grant the interest on refund from the date of payment of the self of the refund. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or withdraw any of the above grounds. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee filed its Return of Income (in short “RoI\") for AY 2014 Rs.3,95,83,180/- and the assessee had paid self Rs.87,00,000/- on 10.07.2014 and Rs.5,41,470/ to Rs.92,41,470/-). The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 03.06.2015 accepting offered the income (capital gain) since it entered into an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) development of plot of land owned by it. offered the capital gains to tax pursuant to the JDA in AY 2014 the relevant year in which the JDA was entered into in the light of Hon’ble ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 2 :: The only issue involved in this appeal is denial of interest on refund u/s 244A for a part of the statutorily eligible period. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest on refund only for the period from 20-2-2018 to 13 being the period commencing from the date on which the assessee preferred the rectification application to the Assessing Officer till the date on which the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order u/s 264 was passed, as this contrary to the provisions of sec 244A of the The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of payment of the self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed the rectification application, as l is contrary to the provisions of Sec 244A and the judicial decisions in this regard. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is respectfully prayed that the AO be directed to grant the interest on refund payment of the self-assessment tax till the date of receipt The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or withdraw any of the The brief facts are that the assessee filed its Return of Income (in 014-15 on 31.07.2014 admitting total income of and the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of on 10.07.2014 and Rs.5,41,470/- on 30.07.2014 (totaling . The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on the returned income wherein the assessee had offered the income (capital gain) since it entered into an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a builder on 29.11.2013 for development of plot of land owned by it. However, the assessee offered the capital gains to tax pursuant to the JDA in AY 2014 year in which the JDA was entered into in the light of Hon’ble /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International The only issue involved in this appeal is denial of interest on refund The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to 018 to 13-3-2019, being the period commencing from the date on which the assessee preferred the rectification application to the Assessing Officer till the date on which the order giving effect to the Commissioner's order u/s ions of sec 244A of the The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed the rectification application, as l is contrary to the provisions of Sec 244A and the judicial For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is respectfully prayed that the AO be directed to grant the interest on refund assessment tax till the date of receipt The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or withdraw any of the The brief facts are that the assessee filed its Return of Income (in 15 on 31.07.2014 admitting total income of assessment tax of on 30.07.2014 (totaling . The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on he assessee had offered the income (capital gain) since it entered into an unregistered with a builder on 29.11.2013 for the he assessee had offered the capital gains to tax pursuant to the JDA in AY 2014-15 being year in which the JDA was entered into in the light of Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in Taxman 497. Meanwhile the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Maini[2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) held that like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, it shall have no effect in law for the purposes other words, if the agreement/JDA was not registered as per law, in such an event, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. upheld the High Court stating capital asset u/s. 2(47)(v) enforced in law u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Propert reading of relevant provisions read with the Registration Act is that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A the Transfer of Property Act 4. Coming back to the present case, (i.e. assessee’s case) pursua the unregistered JDA, the project was abando JDA/agreement got cancelled filed an application u/s. 154 on 20.02.2018 pleading for deletion of capital gains and resultant, Rs.92,41,470/-. However, the AO rejected the application filed u/s. 154 of the Act on 20.07.2018 on the reason that assessee ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 3 :: Bombay High Court decision in ChaturbhujDwarkadasKapadia [2003] 129 hile the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Maini[2017] 86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) held that if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of section 53A of Transfer of Prop other words, if the agreement/JDA was not registered as per law, in such , there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. And the Hon’ble Supreme Court stating that in order to qualify as a ‘transfer’ of a capital asset u/s. 2(47)(v), there must be ‘contract’ which can be enforced in law u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. A reading of relevant provisions read with section 17(1A) and s that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A the Transfer of Property Act. Coming back to the present case, (i.e. assessee’s case) pursua , the project was abandoned by the builder got cancelled on 22.12.2017. Consequently, filed an application u/s. 154 on 20.02.2018 pleading for deletion of capital resultant, refund of the entire tax paid amounting to . However, the AO rejected the application filed u/s. 154 of the Act on 20.07.2018 on the reason that assessee didn’t /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International ChaturbhujDwarkadasKapadia [2003] 129 hile the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir if an agreement, like the JDA in the present case, is not registered, it shall have no effect of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. In other words, if the agreement/JDA was not registered as per law, in such , there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced And the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in order to qualify as a ‘transfer’ of a , there must be ‘contract’ which can be And a con-joint and section 49 of that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in section 53A of Coming back to the present case, (i.e. assessee’s case) pursuant to builder and the Consequently, the assessee filed an application u/s. 154 on 20.02.2018 pleading for deletion of capital the entire tax paid amounting to . However, the AO rejected the application filed u/s. 154 didn’t filerevised return of income citing of M/s. Goetza (India) Ltd vs CIT in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006) was held that the AO doesn’ not made in the RoI/revised return. appeal before the Ld.PCIT u/s. 264 of the Ac of the Ld.PCIT, also the later with the builder on 22.12.2017, the vacant land in question was sold different party in July, 2018 for a total consi the capital gains arising from that event was offered to tax in Considering all relevant facts, t pleased to pass order u/s. 2 holding that the AO erred in rejecting u/s. 154 of the Act and revised dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order 13.09.2019, wherein he was pleased to refund the entire amount of Rs.92,41,470/-. However, the assessee’s prayer for interest u/s.244A of the Act was not allowed by the AO by holding as under: 6. Interest u/s.244A of the Act is not allowed since the assessee has originally filed ‘Nil’ return of income and only after cancel 22.02.2017 filed petition for rectification and claimed refund. Since the delay in claiming the refund is on the part of the assessee, the interest claimed by the assessee u/s. 244A is hereby rejected. ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 4 :: the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case /s. Goetza (India) Ltd vs CIT in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006) as held that the AO doesn’t have power to decide the claims which are not made in the RoI/revised return. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.PCIT u/s. 264 of the Act, and brought to the notice , also the later developments that after cancelling the JDA builder on 22.12.2017, the vacant land in question was sold in July, 2018 for a total consideration of Rs.16 crores arising from that event was offered to tax in Considering all relevant facts, the Ld.PCIT by order dated 26.11.2018 was order u/s. 264 of the Act with certain directions by holding that the AO erred in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Act and revised it as per the terms discussed in his order dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order 13.09.2019, wherein he was pleased to refund the entire amount of . However, the assessee’s prayer for interest u/s.244A of the Act was not allowed by the AO by holding as under: 6. Interest u/s.244A of the Act is not allowed since the assessee has originally filed ‘Nil’ return of income and only after cancellation of JDA on 22.02.2017 filed petition for rectification and claimed refund. Since the delay in claiming the refund is on the part of the assessee, the interest claimed by the assessee u/s. 244A is hereby rejected. /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case /s. Goetza (India) Ltd vs CIT in 284 ITR 323 (SC)(2006), wherein it t have power to decide the claims which are he assessee preferred an brought to the notice that after cancelling the JDA builder on 22.12.2017, the vacant land in question was sold to deration of Rs.16 crores and arising from that event was offered to tax in AY 2019-20. he Ld.PCIT by order dated 26.11.2018 was 4 of the Act with certain directions by filed by the assessee discussed in his order dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, the AO gave effect to the order u/s 264 on 13.09.2019, wherein he was pleased to refund the entire amount of . However, the assessee’s prayer for interest u/s.244A of 6. Interest u/s.244A of the Act is not allowed since the assessee has lation of JDA on 22.02.2017 filed petition for rectification and claimed refund. Since the delay in claiming the refund is on the part of the assessee, the interest 5. Aggrieved by the action of Asses u/s. 244A of the Act, Ld.CIT(A), who was pleased to partly allow the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is entitled to receive interest 20.02.2018 to 13.03.2019 refund and the AO granting 20.02.2018, according to the Ld.CIT(A) no interest is admissible, prior to this date, assessee didn’t made any satisfied with the part relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeal before this Tribunal 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The sole issue is regarding denial of interest on refund for t from the date of self-assessment tax till the date o filed the rectification application aforesaid facts discussed However, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issue in hand is that the assessee had entered into an unregistered JDA with a builder on 29.11.2013 Palavakam. Pursuant to capital gains/LTCG of Rs.3,95,83,180/ and offered self-assessment tax of Rs.87,00,000/ Rs.5,41,470/- on 30.07.2014 ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 5 :: by the action of Assessing Officer denying the interest of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the pleased to partly allow the appeal of the assessee that the assessee is entitled to receive interest for the period from .2018 to 13.03.2019 (i.e. period between the assessee granting it). In respect of the p 20.02.2018, according to the Ld.CIT(A) no interest is admissible, , assessee didn’t made any claim for the refund. Not satisfied with the part relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee this Tribunal. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The sole issue is regarding denial of interest on refund for the period commencing assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed the rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act on 20.02.2018. discussed are not repeated for the sake of brevity. ant facts necessary for adjudication of the issue in hand is that the assessee had entered into an unregistered JDA with a builder on 29.11.2013 in respect of its immoveable property located at Palavakam. Pursuant to entering into the JDA, the assessee of /LTCG of Rs.3,95,83,180/-, while filing its RoI assessment tax of Rs.87,00,000/- on 10.07.2014 and on 30.07.2014 as well as interest u/s. 234B of the Act of /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International sing Officer denying the interest the assessee preferred an appeal before the pleased to partly allow the appeal of the assessee by for the period from the assessee claimed the it). In respect of the period prior to 20.02.2018, according to the Ld.CIT(A) no interest is admissible, since for the refund. Not satisfied with the part relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The sole he period commencing which the assessee on 20.02.2018. The are not repeated for the sake of brevity. ant facts necessary for adjudication of the issue in hand is that the assessee had entered into an unregistered JDA with a moveable property located at the JDA, the assessee offered on 31.07.2014 on 10.07.2014 and as well as interest u/s. 234B of the Act of Rs.2,71,785/-(total amount of Rs.9 disputed; and the RoI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Ac accepting the RoI on 03.06.2015. Since, the developer didn’t act upon the unregistered JDA dated 29.11.2013 cancelled the ibid JDA by executing and pursuant to it, filed an application requesting for deleting of the tax paid of Rs.92,41,470/ order dated 20.07.2018. application u/s. 264 of the Act before the Ld.PCIT who was pleased to allow the same by order dated 31.01.2019. Pursuant thereto, the AO had given effect to the order of the Ld.PCIT by order dated 13.03.2019 granting refund of the tax pai interest on refund. On appeal, the L the assessee by holding that the assessee the date of filing of application u/s. 154 of the Act before the AO i.e. 20.02.2018 onwards to 13.03.2019 to Ld.PCIT order. The assessee not satisfied with the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A) has contended denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of payment of self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 6 :: (total amount of Rs.92,41,470/-) was remitted, which is not and the RoI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Ac on 03.06.2015. Since, the developer didn’t act upon dated 29.11.2013 and backed out of it, by executing cancellation deed dated 22.12.2017 filed an application before AO u/s. 154 of the Act the capital gains offered by it and of the tax paid of Rs.92,41,470/-, which was rejected by the A order dated 20.07.2018. Pursuant thereto, the assessee of the Act before the Ld.PCIT who was pleased to allow the same by order dated 31.01.2019. Pursuant thereto, the AO had t to the order of the Ld.PCIT by order dated 13.03.2019 granting refund of the tax paid amounting to Rs.92,41,470/ est on refund. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee by holding that the assessee is entitled to refund only from the date of filing of application u/s. 154 of the Act before the AO i.e. to 13.03.2019 i.e. on the date of the AO gave effect . The assessee not satisfied with the aforesaid action of T(A) has contended before us that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International remitted, which is not and the RoI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC on 03.06.2015. Since, the developer didn’t act upon it, the assessee cancellation deed dated 22.12.2017; u/s. 154 of the Act, and claimed refund which was rejected by the AO vide Pursuant thereto, the assessee preferred an of the Act before the Ld.PCIT who was pleased to allow the same by order dated 31.01.2019. Pursuant thereto, the AO had t to the order of the Ld.PCIT by order dated 13.03.2019 d amounting to Rs.92,41,470/-, but denied d.CIT(A) has granted partial relief to d to refund only from the date of filing of application u/s. 154 of the Act before the AO i.e. from i.e. on the date of the AO gave effect . The assessee not satisfied with the aforesaid action of that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in denying interest on refund for the period commencing from the date of assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a 7. So, the only question th interest for the period in question viz., from the date of payment of self which the assessee filed a rectification application. For that let look at the section 244A of the Act, wh under: Interest on refunds. 244A. (1) Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely : (a) ……….. (i) ………….. (ii) …………… (aa) where the refund is out of any tax paid under interest shall be calculated at the rat or part of a month comprised in the period, from the date of furnishing of return of income or payment of tax, whichever is later, to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest under clause ( if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of (b) ………….. (1A) ………. (1B) ………………. (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for attributable to the assessee whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable under sub section (1) or (1A) 38 ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 7 :: the only question that needs to be adjudicated is whether the interest for the period in question could have been denied to the assessee viz., from the date of payment of self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. For that let 44A of the Act, which the relevant provisions Interest on refunds. (1) Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely :— ) where the refund is out of any tax paid under section- interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period, from the date of furnishing of return of income or payment of tax, whichever is later, to the date on which the refund is granted: that no interest under clause (a) or clause (aa) shall be payable, if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined section (1) of section-143 or on regular assessment; (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for attributable to the assessee38[or the deductor, as the case may be,] whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable under sub 38[or (1B)], and where any question arises as to /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International to be adjudicated is whether the denied to the assessee assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed a rectification application. For that let us have a the relevant provisions readsas (1) Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon -140A, such half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period, from the date of furnishing of return of income or payment of tax, whichever is later, to the date on ) shall be payable, if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined (2) If the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for reasons [or the deductor, as the case may be,] whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable under sub- [or (1B)], and where any question arises as to the period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. 8. Since, the controversy is only regarding the interest payable between the date of payment of self the assessee filed rectification application be denied only if the AO/Ld.CIT(A) is able to make out a case that the delay in claiming the refund was attribu part of assessee. In other words, if the AO is successful in establishing that the delay in claiming the refund was attributable to the act/omission on the part of assessee, then section (2) of section 244A of the Act. fact that the assessee offered tax on LTCG and paid self got cancelled on 22.12.2017 and thereafter has means according to Ld.CIT(A), to reasons attributable to the assessee However, we do not subscribe to such pedantic view in the facts of the case. 9. In this case, it is to be noticed that the event which triggered capital gain was caused due to the assessee entering into JDA property on 29.11.2013 with the developer/builder. Since, the agreement was not acted ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 8 :: period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner whose decision thereon shall be final. Since, the controversy is only regarding the interest payable en the date of payment of self-assessment tax till the date on which the assessee filed rectification application, according to us, t be denied only if the AO/Ld.CIT(A) is able to make out a case that the delay in claiming the refund was attributable to the act/o t of assessee. In other words, if the AO is successful in establishing the delay in claiming the refund was attributable to the act/omission on the part of assessee, then the AO can deny the claim of ion (2) of section 244A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the the assessee on entering into the JDA dated 29.11.2013, and paid self-assessment tax; and thereafter, on 22.12.2017 and thereafter has claimed refund which according to Ld.CIT(A), the delay in claiming the refund was due to reasons attributable to the assessee and justified the action of AO However, we do not subscribe to such reasoning since it facts of the case. In this case, it is to be noticed that the event which triggered capital gain was caused due to the assessee entering into JDA on 29.11.2013 with the developer/builder. Since, the agreement was not acted upon; and developer backed out and /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International period to be excluded, it shall be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Since, the controversy is only regarding the interest payable assessment tax till the date on which , according to us, the same can be denied only if the AO/Ld.CIT(A) is able to make out a case that the omission on the t of assessee. In other words, if the AO is successful in establishing the delay in claiming the refund was attributable to the act/omission the AO can deny the claim of under sub- has accepted the on entering into the JDA dated 29.11.2013, had and thereafter, JDA claimed refund which the refund was due and justified the action of AO. since it is a narrow or In this case, it is to be noticed that the event which triggered capital to develop its on 29.11.2013 with the developer/builder. Since, the JDA/ and developer backed out and since, the JDA in question was not registered as per law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini JDA is not enforceable in the JDA in question, then there is no JDA in the eyes of law is un-enforceable in law capital gain of Rs.92,41,470/ fact or law, which should interest from the date of remittance of Taxes to the exchequer, because State should not be unjustly enriched on an event which didn’t exist in the eyes of law. For that we refer to the Circular no. 68 A&PAC] dated 17.11.1971 of the CBDT which reads as under: 1. The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute \"a mistake apparent from the records\" and rectific the 1961 Act would be in order. It has, therefore, been decided that assessee moves an application under section 154 a later decision of the Supreme Court pronoun mistake has occurred in any of the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon, provided the same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order. Where any such applications have already b and the assessee files fresh applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on par with the applications which may either be pending or received after the issue of this circular. 2. The Board. desire that any appea may please be withdrawn. 10. And it is no longer res Income Tax Authorities 237 ITR 889. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, as the fact that land in question was sold to different party in July, 2018 for a total consideration of Rs.16 crores and the capital gains ari ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 9 :: JDA in question was not registered as per law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) i.e. in law. And when we juxtapose this the JDA in question, then there is no JDA in the eyes of law enforceable in law. Thus, it is noted that the assessee capital gain of Rs.92,41,470/- upon mistake of fact or misconception of uld be used against the assessee for denying the nterest from the date of remittance of Taxes to the exchequer, because State should not be unjustly enriched on an event which didn’t exist in the . For that we refer to the Circular no. 68 [F.N A&PAC] dated 17.11.1971 of the CBDT which reads as under: The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute \"a mistake apparent from the records\" and rectificatory action under section 35/154 of the 1922 Act/ the 1961 Act would be in order. It has, therefore, been decided that assessee moves an application under section 154 pointing out that in the light of a later decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred in any of the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon, provided the same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order. Where any such applications have already been rejected and the assessee files fresh applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on par with the applications which may either be pending or received after the issue of this circular. The Board. desire that any appeals or references pending on the point at issue may please be withdrawn. it is no longer res-integra that CBDT Circular are binding on the Income Tax Authorities as held in the case of UCO Bank vs CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, as the fact that land in question was sold to different party in July, 2018 for a total consideration of Rs.16 crores and the capital gains ari /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International JDA in question was not registered as per law as held by the Hon’ble i.e. un-registered this case law with the JDA in question, then there is no JDA in the eyes of law and therefore, the assessee offered misconception of be used against the assessee for denying the nterest from the date of remittance of Taxes to the exchequer, because State should not be unjustly enriched on an event which didn’t exist in the [F.No.245/17/71- A&PAC] dated 17.11.1971 of the CBDT which reads as under: The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute \"a mistake apparent atory action under section 35/154 of the 1922 Act/ the 1961 Act would be in order. It has, therefore, been decided that where an pointing out that in the light of cing the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred in any of the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon, provided the same has been filed within time and een rejected and the assessee files fresh applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on par with the applications which may either be pending or ls or references pending on the point at issue are binding on the in the case of UCO Bank vs CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, as well as the fact that land in question was sold to different party in July, 2018 for a total consideration of Rs.16 crores and the capital gains arising from that event was offered to tax in AY 2019 the AO is directed to grant interest u/s. 244A of the Act from the date of payment of self-assessment tax 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Order pronounced on the Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखासद\f/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u0003ई/Chennai, \u0005दनांक/Dated: 31st January JPV, Sr.PS आदेशक\r\u000eितिलिपअ\u0014ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ\u0018/Appellant 2. \u0019\u001aथ\u0018/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u001f/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0019ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0010फाईल/GF ITA No.2707/Chny/20 M/s. :: 10 :: that event was offered to tax in AY 2019-20, the assessee the AO is directed to grant interest u/s. 244A of the Act from the date of assessment tax. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. pronounced on the 31st day of January, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबीटी. (ABY T. VARKEY \u0001याियकसद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER January, 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. /Chny/2024(AY 2014-15) M/s.Goyals International the assessee succeeds and the AO is directed to grant interest u/s. 244A of the Act from the date of , in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. "