YERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES V. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX (ASSMT)

OP/22855/1998

AI Insights

The case involves Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., the petitioner, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, which denied them interest on a tax refund for the assessment year 1994-95. The denial was based on Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act, which excludes the period from the due date of filing the return to the actual date of filing from interest calculation if the delay is attributable to the assessee. The petitioner argued that they were not given a personal hearing before the decision was made, referencing a similar case (OP No. 16883/1997) where the court had remanded the decision for lack of a personal hearing. The court, acknowledging the precedent and the procedural oversight, quashed the previous order and directed a fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755709 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: OP No. 16883/1997
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: E K NANDAKUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment year 1994-95; Income Tax; Interest on Refund; Section 244A(2)
• Section: 154; 143(1)(a); 244A(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY , THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936 OP.No. 22855 of 1998 (U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. 'BHADRATHA', MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. M.K. KARTHIKEYAN. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSMT.) SPECIAL RANGE, JYOTHI COMPLEX, SRI KERALA VARMA COLLEGE ROAD JN.,THRISSUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMG OP No.22855/1998 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143 (1) (a) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28-03-1996. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 1994-95 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20-11-1996. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT DATED 19-12-1996 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12-06-1997. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 12-08-1997. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10-02-1998. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL True copy P.A. To Judge AMG C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------- O.P. No. 22855 OF 1998-U ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order wherein the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the amount of refund with respect to the assessment year 1994-95 was rejected, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the period from the due date of filing of the return till the actual date of filing of the return. It is stated that under Section 244A (2) of Income Tax Act the period can be excluded from payment of interest since the reason for delay in refund is attributable to the assessee. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed a judgment rendered by this court in OP No. 16883/1997, dated 22-07-2005. It is evident that with respect to the very same issue relating to the assessment year 1992-1993, this court had ordered a remand for fresh consideration with notice to the petitioner and to pass a speaking order on the O.P No.22855/1998 -2- basis of the finding that before taking such decision no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. 3. Considering the fact that an identical order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with respect to previous year, this court is inclined to follow the very same course in the present case also. 4. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to re- consider Ext.P5 with opportunity afforded to the petitioner and to take a fresh decision with respect to the claim for payment of interest on refund, through an appropriate speaking order. 5. Needful steps in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge "