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 adjudicate their applications filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. These applications pertained to refund of income tax allegedly paid mistakenly on interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for various assessment years.

The grievance of the petitioners was that despite filing such applications, there was significant delay of nearly four years in disposal 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 tax paid on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act can be claimed as refund on the ground that such income is not taxable.
  3. Whether delay and limitation under CBDT Circular can justify non-disposal of refund applications.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs Ghanshyam Dass HUF (2009) 8 SCC 412, arguing that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable income.
  • It was contended that even if tax was paid due to mistake or misrepresentation, the assessee is entitled to claim a refund of non-taxable income.
  • The petitioners highlighted unreasonable delay of about four years in deciding their applications.
  • It was further argued that such delay violated the CBDT Circular dated 9 June 2015, which governs condonation and refund claims.

Respondent’s Arguments

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

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Delhi High Court observed that the petitions involved a limited prayer, i.e., direction to decide pending applications.
  • Without adjudicating on merits of taxability or limitation, the Court disposed of the writ petitions.
  • The Court directed the Income Tax Department to decide the applications within eight weeks in accordance with law.
  • All rights and contentions of both parties, including maintainability and limitation, were kept open.

Important Clarification

  • The Court did not decide whether the interest under Section 28 is taxable or not.
  • The ruling is limited to ensuring timely disposal of applications under Section 119(2)(b).
  • Issues relating to limitation, maintainability, and taxability remain open for determination by the authority.

Sections Involved

  • Section 119(2)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • CBDT Circular dated 9 June 2015

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.