Thursday, 5 December 2013

Chironjilal Sharma HUF vs. UOI (Supreme Court)


 
Pursuant to a search conducted u/s 132, cash of Rs. 2.35 lakhs was recovered. The AO passed an order u/s 132(5) in which he calculated the tax liability and appropriated the seized cash. An assessment order was also passed to the same effect. The AO’s order was finally set-aside by the Tribunal and it became final. Consequently, the assessee was refunded the amount of Rs. 2.35 lakhs with interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by the AO) until the date of refund. The assessee claimed that he is entitled to interest u/s 132B(4)(b) of the Act for the period from the expiry of period of six months from the date of order u/s 132(5) to the date of regular assessment order. In other words, as the order u/s 132(5) was passed on 31.5.1990, six months expired on 30.11.1990 and the last of the regular assessments was done on 4.3.1994, the assessee claimed interest u/s 132B(4)(b) from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994. HELD by the Supreme Court:
The department’s argument that the refund of excess amount is governed by s. 240 and that s. 132B(4)(b) has no application is not acceptable. S. 132B(4)(b) deals with pre-assessment period and there is no conflict between this provision and s. 240 or for that matter s. 244(A). The former deals with pre-assessment period in the matters of search and seizure and the later deals with post assessment period as per the order in appeal. The department’s view is not right on the plain reading of s. 132B(4)(b) and the assessee is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum u/s 132B(4)(b) from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994. The interest shall be paid within two months from today.

No comments:

CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024

  This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...