Facts of the Case

The petitioners, including M/s Umesh Atree (HUF) and others, filed writ petitions seeking directions to the Income Tax Department to decide their applications filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These applications were for claiming refunds of income tax that had been inadvertently paid on interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for various assessment years.

The petitioners contended that such interest is not taxable income and therefore the tax paid was erroneous. Despite filing applications, there was a delay of nearly four years in adjudication by the authorities.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Income Tax Department is obligated to decide applications filed under Section 119(2)(b) within a reasonable time.
  2. Whether refund claims for tax paid on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act can be entertained despite delay.
  3. Whether such interest is taxable or not, in light of judicial precedents.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs Ghanshyam Dass HUF (2009) 8 SCC 412, asserting that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable as income.
  • It was argued that even if tax is paid due to mistake or misrepresentation, the assessee is entitled to claim a refund for non-taxable income.
  • The delay of approximately four years in deciding the applications was arbitrary and contrary to CBDT Circular dated 9 June 2015.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that subsequent judgments of various High Courts have held that such interest is taxable under the head “income from other sources.”
  • It was also argued that many of the applications were barred by limitation under the CBDT Circular dated 9 June 2015.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Delhi High Court noted that the petitions involved a limited prayer—seeking a direction for disposal of pending applications.
  • Without adjudicating on merits, the Court directed the Income Tax authorities to decide the applications within eight weeks in accordance with law.
  • The Court clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including maintainability, were left open.

Important Clarifications

  • The Court did not decide on the taxability of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
  • The ruling emphasizes timely disposal of applications under Section 119(2)(b).
  • Issues of limitation and taxability remain open for adjudication by the competent authority.

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2020:DHC:2350-DB/MMH23072020CW44892020_204948.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.