LAJPAT RAI V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF I.T, LDH. & ORS

CWP/5752/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Lajpat Rai, the petitioner, who approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking the return of Indira Vikas Patras that were seized by the Income Tax Department on 22.9.1998. The Patras were returned on 12.5.2009, after the filing of the petition. The petitioner also claimed interest on these Patras from the date of maturity until encashment. The respondents argued that the petitioner could claim interest before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Patiala, and if dissatisfied, could approach the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh. The court referenced a similar case where interest was awarded and allowed the petitioner to seek interest through the appropriate channels.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763129 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sandvik Asia Ltd v. CIT & others (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K K MEHTA; RAJESH KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Income Tax; Indira Vikas Patra; Interest claim; Seizure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"CWP No.5752 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5752 of 2009 Date 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? M.M. KUMAR,J The Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that Indira Vikas Patras seized by the respondents-departments were not returned. The petitioner has also claimed interest. It is undisputed that Indira Vikas Patra were seized from the premises of the petitioner on 22.9.1998 and this has been released to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 after filing of the instant petition when the proceedings have been completed on the discussion of appeals with regard to quantum on 31.10.2007 (Annexure CWP No.5752 of 2009 #2# P.4). The aforesaid order has attained finality. In para 1 of the Preliminary Objections of the written statement filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, the aforesaid position has been explained. This claim made by the petitioner does not survive for adjudication. Other claim made by the petitioner is the payment of interest from the date of maturity of Indira Vikas Patra till the date of their encashment. In that respect, respondents have stated in para 1 of the Preliminary Objection that the petitioner could make his claim for interest before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Patiala and could also furnish its computation. It further states that any interest payable to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be paid because the quantum additions have attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal of the revenue on 31.10.2007. Respondents have further taken the stand that if the petitioner remains dissatisfied with the amount of interest, which may be awarded and calculated by Assistant Commissioner, then representation may be filed by him before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh thereafter. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10223 of 2007 decided on 25.5.2009 has awarded interest in such like circumstances, which in turn has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd v. CIT & others (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC). Be that as it may. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the instant petition with regard to the release of Indira Vikas Patra has been rendered infructuous. However, with regard to the claim of interest, the petitioner may make representation to respondent No.3 and in case, they are dissatisfied with the award of interest by respondent CWP No.5752 of 2009 #3# 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, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE "