Smt. Uttara Nerurkar V. The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2) and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)

WP/1016/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Uttara Nerurkar, who filed writ petitions against the Income Tax Department seeking directions for the payment of tax refunds along with interest for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-00. The petitioner had received two cheques totaling Rs.20,24,865/- for the refunds due. The main legal contention was regarding the entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, specifically the interest on interest, which was supported by a previous decision in S. Thigarajan's case. The court found that the Revenue was obligated to pay interest on interest for delayed payments and directed the authorities to resolve similar pending cases within a specified timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804596 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: S. Thigarajan and Ors. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 237 of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: E I
• Assessee Lawyers: CHYTHANYA
• Keywords: Delay in payment; Income Tax Refund; Interest on Refund; TDS refund
• Section: 237; 237; 226; 227

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos:1016-1017/2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT UTTARA NERURKAR W/O SUHAS SHRIPAD NERURKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.150, KSHITIJ PALM MEADOWS PHASE I, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2) KENDRIYA SADANA KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1), HMT BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, # 59, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE-560 032. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO ISSUE CHEQUE OR TO CREDIT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF REFUND GRANTED BY THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 237 BY THE R2 2 DATED 8.10.2010 FOR THE AYs 1998-99 AND 1999-00 AS GIVEN IN ANNEXURES-A AND B AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER On 21.3.2013, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two cheques for Rs.11,54,285/- and Rs.8,70,580/- dated 20.03.2013 are received by the petitioner while learned counsel for the respondents files his memo enclosing copy of the letter dated 20.03.2013 and copies of the tax refund orders for the said sum. 2. Memo is taken on record. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, amounts due to the petitioner towards refund of the Tax Deducted at Source are as follows:- Sl. No. Assessment Year Amount ( Rs.) 1 1998-1999 4,50,187 2 Interest at 0.50% per month up to 08.10.2010 3,55,198 (1+2) 8,05,385 3 1999-2000 5,96,991 4 Interest at 0.50% per month up to 08.10.2010 4,70,813 (3+4) 10,67,804 TOTAL 18,73,189 3 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 0.50% per month on interest calculated up to 08.10.2010, from 09.10.2010 up to 20.03.2013, the date of payment of the TDS refund along with interest in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P. No.11044/2009 and connected petitions dated 06.08.2009 in case of S. Thigarajan and Ors., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 5. Learned counsel hastens to add that though petitioner has restricted her claim for interest at 0.50% per month, while in the aforesaid decision, the Revenue was directed to consider payment of interest at 18% per annum, which has been complied with, the petitioner would be satisfied with the claim made in the petition. 6. The answer to the question over payment of interest over interest need not detain the Court for long in the light of the observations made in S. Thigarajan`s case. In other words, the Revenue is bound to pay interest on interest, if the amounts due are not paid on the date it became due up to the date of payment. 4 7. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to secure instructions and also direct the authorities to pay the interest over interest. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the Revenue having collected TDS from several employees of M/s. Infosys, similarly circumstanced as that of the petitioner, S. Thigarajan and others, a direction be issued to the Revenue to dispose of all the applications pending in the light of the decision in S. Thigarajan`s case within a time frame since it would be short of harassment of such applicants to come before Court and seek similar orders. 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue to place before the Court the total number of such applications pending and the reasons as to why they are kept pending, though a decision in that regard is made in S. Thigarajan`s case (supra). List on 26.03.2013”. 2. Heard Sri Indrakumar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue who submits that there are 119 applications, which are pending, similar to that of the petitioner and that the efforts should be taken to 5 ensure payment of the amounts to the said applicants within 30 days from today. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue further submits that the petitioner has since been paid, the entire amounts due together with interest and interest on interest upto date, which the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute. 4. Recording the submission of the learned counsel, nothing further survives for consideration in these petitions and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE PB "