DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH WP.No.22862 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 AREVA T & D India Limited Rep.by its Director-Treasury & Taxation Mr.L.V.Srinivasan–For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar Assisted by Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel—-wp allowed good order
by
Sekar Reporter
·
February 29, 2020
[2/29, 08:58] Sekarreporter 1: WP.No.22862 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.09.2019 CORAM THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH WP.No.22862 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 AREVA T & D India Limited Rep.by its Director-Treasury & Taxation Mr.L.V.Srinivasan … Petitioner /Vs/ Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-I, VII Floor, New Bock, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 600034. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I [1], 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 600034. …. Respondents PRAYER: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in C.No.217(5)/CIT-I/264/2006-07 dated 31.03.2008 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant interest under Section 244A on the self assessment tax of Rs.2 crores paid by the petitioner company. For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar Assisted by Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel http://www.judis.nic.in [2/29, 08:58] Sekarreporter 1: WP.No.22862 of 2008 claimed interest on the amount deposited. This explanation appears reasonable to me. In my view, the eligibility to interest in the present case is in terms of 244A(1)(b), which governs the grant of interest in ‘any other case’, apart from those situations covered under sub-clause (a) being interest on refund of tax paid or collected at source or paid by way of advance tax or in terms of Section 199. I am thus of the considered view that a delay in putting forth a claim for interest, especially in the light of the facts and events as narrated above, certainly cannot be fatal to the claim itself. In CIT V. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals ((2013) 358 ITR 291) a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the context of a refund sought under Section 244 A, explained the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia (supra). While laying down clearly that the grant of interest has to be strictly in terms of the applicable statutory provision, the Bench also observes that in a situation where the statue does not provide for a refund, even under general law, an assessee, in appropriate cases, has to be compensated for depreciation of capital. In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted the amount in question on 28.06.1996. I am thus of the categoric view that it is entitled to interest in regard to the same, as claimed, in terms of Section 244 A of the Act. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 30.09.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No speaking order/ non-speaking order http://www.judis.nic.inska