High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 07 DEL CK 0134

M/S Umesh Atree (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-11

Delhi High Court · Decided on 23 July 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Sanjeev Narula, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492, 4493 Of 2020, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16188, 16189, 16190, 16191, 16192, 16193, 16194, 16195, 16196, 16197 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 362 words

Manmohan, J

1.

The petitions have been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein.

2.

The same have been heard by way of video conferencing.

3.

Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to respondent to decide the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 119(2)(b) of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 for refund of income tax inadvertently paid on interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for

various assessment years.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass HUF, (2009) 8 SCC 412 has held that income tax is

not payable on such interest received, as it is not income. He further submits that an assessee even after making payment of tax either under a

misrepresentation or mistake, can claim refund on income that was not taxable.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there has been an unreasonably long delay of nearly four years in deciding the applications. He

submits that non adjudication of the applications filed by the petitioners is contrary to Circular dated 9th June, 2015 issued by the Central Board of

Direct Taxes.

6.

Issue notice.

7.

Mr. Sunil Agarwal and Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra accept notice on behalf of the respondent. They state that different High Courts subsequent to the

judgment of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass HUF (supra) have held that tax is payable on the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

8.

They further state that most of the applications filed by the petitioners are barred by limitation under the same circular dated 9th June, 2015, relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9.

However, keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the writ petitions, the same are disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the

applications filed by the petitioners within eight weeks in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties, including the plea of

maintainability, are left open.

10.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.