Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • D.P Wadhwa
  • Vijendra Jain, JJ.
Acts
  • FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT 1973
  • provisions of subsection (1) of section 143
  • Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act),
  • section 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b) and 271(1)(a),
  • sub-section (1) of section 142
  • 1, 1989, section 241
  • section 271(1)(c)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • D.P Wadhwa
  • Vijendra Jain, JJ.
Acts
  • FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT 1973
  • provisions of subsection (1) of section 143
  • Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act),
  • section 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b) and 271(1)(a),
  • sub-section (1) of section 142
  • 1, 1989, section 241
  • section 271(1)(c)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — D.P. Wadhwa, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution dated August 3, 1987, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus or other directions to compel respondents (the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range-XL) to refund tax aggregating Rs. 16,17,109.32 plus interest by redepositing the same into his Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) account at Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

The petitioner succeeded before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on May 14, 1987, which entitled him to refunds of amounts earlier withdrawn by the Assessing Officer from his FCNR/SDR accounts (equivalents noted in the record as U.S. dollars 35,000 = Rs. 4,55,000 and U.S. dollars 99,995 = Rs. 12,99,935). The Revenue filed applications under sections 256(1) and subsequently under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act to refer or obtain a statement of case, and later pursued a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The assessing authority repeatedly issued orders under section 241 of the Income-tax Act withholding the refund, sometimes renewed periodically.

While these writ proceedings were pending, the Assessing Officer assessed the petitioner in respect of interest under section 244 (assessment year 1988–89) and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(1). The petitioner then amended his writ to seek restoration of his FCNR account amounts and to quash orders under section 241, the assessment order for 1988–89 and penalties imposed.

The respondents contended that withholding and adjustments were justified by orders under section 241 and by the pendency of further proceedings (including the SLP). The petition proceeded through multiple listings and directions by the High Court for the Revenue to provide particulars of the SLP and reasons for withholding; the record reflects non-compliance or inadequate compliance by the Revenue with those directions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether orders under section 241 of the Income-tax Act could lawfully be used to withhold a refund where the Revenue had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the respondents complied with the statutory requirements of section 245 (set-off) before purportedly adjusting refunds and withholding amounts.
  3. Whether the assessment and penalties (for assessment year 1988–89) premised upon interest accruing on the refund and adjustments had legal effect given the court's view on the legality of the withholding under section 241.
  4. Whether and to what extent the petitioner was entitled to immediate restoration of the withdrawn foreign currency balances (and interest) into his FCNR/SDR accounts.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner asserted entitlement to the refund after success before the Appellate Tribunal and maintained that withholding could only be done under section 245 if its procedural requirements (written intimation of set-off) were complied with.
  • He contended that withholding refunds under section 241 could not be justified by mere filing of a special leave petition under article 136; section 241 refers to remedies within the Act and not to proceedings under article 136.
  • The petitioner sought restoration of his FCNR account balances with accrued interest and quashing of all orders under section 241, the assessment order for 1988–89, and penalties imposed for that year.
  • He also contended (as noted in the record) that interest accrued on the non-resident account maintained in foreign exchange was not liable to tax (and the Revenue had not answered this point in the record).

Respondents’ Arguments

  • The respondents accepted the petitioner’s entitlement in principle but claimed that refunds could be withheld under section 241 because the Revenue had filed proceedings (a petition under section 256(1) and later an SLP in the Supreme Court) challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order.
  • They asserted that orders under section 241 were validly made with the prior approval of the competent Commissioner and that the pendency of the SLP in the Supreme Court justified continued withholding to protect Revenue interests.
  • The respondents relied on adjustments of the refund against tax demands and penalties for assessment year 1988–89, maintaining those adjustments and withholding were justified; later they produced a letter purportedly under section 245 to show set-off and continued withholding until a specified date.
  • They also referenced decisions (including Bombay and Andhra Pradesh High Court authorities) to support their position on adjustment and withholding in certain circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Suri Sons v. CIT, [1988] 169 ITR 320 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Holdings that an assessing authority was not justified in withholding a refund under section 241 of the Act merely because reference proceedings under section 256(1) initiated by the Revenue were pending. The court relied on this authority to support the view that withholding the petitioner’s refund under section 241 (while proceedings connected with the order were pending) was not justified.
Suresh B. Jain v. P.K.P. Nair, [1992] 194 ITR 148 (Bombay High Court) Authority to the effect that interest payable under section 244(1A) may be set off and adjusted against tax liability under section 245 as if it were a refund due to an assessee. The court noted this decision but held it not to be relevant to the core issue in the present case (the court did not adopt it as a basis to uphold the Revenue’s actions).
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. CIT, [1975] 100 ITR 401 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Held (per that court) that an order under section 241 could be made withholding the refundable amount where an appeal by the Revenue against a High Court judgment was pending before the Supreme Court. The present court observed that it was unclear whether that case concerned an appeal under section 261 of the Act; if the Andhra Pradesh decision were to support withholding merely on filing an SLP under article 136, the present court respectfully disagreed with that proposition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps based strictly on the material in the record:

  1. Context and entitlement: The petitioner obtained a favourable order from the Appellate Tribunal on May 14, 1987, which rendered him entitled to refund of sums earlier withdrawn from his FCNR/SDR accounts.
  2. Nature and scope of section 241: The court examined section 241 (both pre- and post-amendment language included in the record) and determined that it contemplates withholding of refunds where an order giving rise to refund is the subject-matter of an appeal or further proceeding "under this Act" or where "any other proceeding under this Act is pending." The court concluded that section 241 therefore refers to remedies and proceedings within the statutory scheme (for example, appeals and reference applications under sections 256 and 261 of the Act).
  3. Article 136 / special leave petitions: The Revenue’s contention that mere filing of a special leave petition (SLP) under article 136 of the Constitution was sufficient to invoke section 241 was rejected. The court held that section 241 cannot have reference to proceedings under article 136. If the Revenue wishes to withhold a refund after filing an SLP in the Supreme Court it must obtain orders (for example, a stay) from the Supreme Court; it cannot rely on section 241 to justify withholding pending the fate of an SLP.
  4. Lack of evidence about the SLP and non-compliance with court directions: The court recorded numerous directions made to the respondents to provide particulars about the alleged SLP (number, date of filing, stage, efforts to obtain listing) and found that the Revenue repeatedly failed to provide satisfactory information or comply with directions. The court observed that there was no clear evidence on the record showing a valid pending SLP effectively operating to deprive the petitioner of his refund.
  5. On the purported section 245 order / set-off: The Revenue produced a letter dated May 5, 1993, claiming set-off under section 245. The court found no evidence in the record that the pre-conditions of section 245 were complied with—specifically, there was no indication that the required written intimation of proposed set-off had been given to the assessee prior to effecting set-off. Consequently, the purported action under section 245 was held to be procedurally defective and could not sustain continued withholding.
  6. Consequences for subsequent assessments and penalties: Because the court concluded that withholding under section 241, after dismissal of the Revenue's application under section 256(2), was without jurisdiction and illegal, it held that the assessment order for 1988–89 (and the penalties imposed in that year) premised on the withholding and hypothetical interest had "no meaning" in the circumstances—particularly as the Revenue had not answered the petitioner's assertion that interest on the FCNR account in foreign exchange was not liable to tax.
  7. Relief and remedial directions: On the basis of the above analysis the court concluded that the petitioner ought to have his FCNR/SDR amounts (two sums in USD as recorded) together with accrued interest deposited back into his accounts within one month; the bank was to obtain any necessary permissions (for example, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973) if required for crediting interest.
  8. Costs and admonition: The court criticised the departmental conduct (delay, failure to comply with directions, use of repeated section 241 orders and later a defective section 245 letter) and imposed exemplary costs assessed at Rs. 11,000 (including counsel fee of Rs. 5,500), finding the matter demonstrated "indifferent attitude" and repeated denial of the petitioner’s lawful dues.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute.

Direct orders and immediate effect on the parties:

  • The respondents are directed to deposit back into the petitioner’s FCNR/SDR accounts at Indian Overseas Bank, Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, the sums of U.S. dollars 35,000 (Rs. 4,55,000) and U.S. dollars 99,995 (Rs. 12,99,935) together with interest accrued thereon, within one month.
  • If any permission is required to credit interest into the non-resident account (for example under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973), the Indian Overseas Bank shall obtain the requisite permission or clearance.
  • Exemplary costs of Rs. 11,000 (inclusive of counsel fee) are imposed on the Revenue.
  • A copy of the order will be sent to the Indian Overseas Bank for compliance.

Broader legal implications indicated by the court:

  • The court stated the legal principle that section 241 of the Income-tax Act applies to appeals and further proceedings under the Act itself and does not extend to proceedings under article 136 of the Constitution (special leave petitions). Therefore, filing an SLP alone does not by itself authorize withholding under section 241; the Revenue must obtain appropriate orders (for example, stays) from the Supreme Court if it seeks to preserve its position pending article 136 proceedings.
  • The court also emphasised the procedural requirement under section 245 that an assessee must be given written intimation before a set-off is effected; absence of such intimation will vitiate purported set-off under that provision.

The court expressed disagreement with any authority to the extent that it permits withholding on the basis of mere filing of a special leave petition under article 136 without appropriate orders from the Supreme Court; the court relied on Suri Sons to support the view limiting the scope of section 241 to proceedings under the Act.

This summary is prepared exclusively from the provided opinion text. No facts or holdings outside the opinion have been added.

Show full summary ...

    Vijay Kumar Bhati v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another

    D.P Wadhwa, J.:— The petitioner, a non-resident Indian and a much harassed man filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus or other such writ, direction or order directing the two respondents to forthwith grant the refund of tax aggregating to Rs. 16,17,109.32 along with interest thereon by redepositing the same in his Foreign Currency Non-Resident Account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The two respondents, respectively, are the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-V, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range-XL The petition was filed on August 3, 1987. Then, on October 5, 1987, rule D.B was issued and it was ordered to be listed as high up on December 7, 1987. Somehow the matter has been pending all this period, though the petitioner has been moving successive applications for early hearing of the petition. The petitioner said that under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), the refund could be withheld only under the provisions of section 245 and inasmuch as there was no such order he was entitled to refund forthwith. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the refund on his succeeding in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Appellate Tribunal”, for short), but said that a petition under section 256(1) had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal for referring certain questions of law for the decision of the High Court. This application, they said, was filed on July 28, 1987, and was pending adjudication. They also said that the first respondent had passed orders under section 241 to withhold the refund until April 30, 1988. It is also mentioned that a criminal complaint under sections 276C and 277 of the Act had also been filed against the petitioner arising out of the same assessment year (assessment year 1986–87). In the order under section 241 filed with the reply affidavit it was stated that a refund of Rs. 18,98,440 had become due to the petitioner in the case.

    2. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petition under section 256(1) of the Act, as mentioned above of the respondents was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, and yet another petition filed under section 256(2) of the Act before this court seeking a statement of case from the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. We have been told that the complaint filed under sections 276C and 277 of the Act also met with the same fate and was dismissed. It appears, every six months, orders were being passed by the authority under, section 241 of the Act withholding refund due to the petitioner. In their reply affidavit, the respondents also referred to the provisions of section 244 of the Act which entitles an assessee to interest on the refund due which was not paid within a certain period.

    3. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Assessing Officer assessed the petitioner for the assessment year 1988–89 on the interest which had become due to him under section 244 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that a sum of Rs. 6,83,244 had become due to the petitioner as interest on the refund of Rs. 16,17,105. The petitioner was accordingly assessed at Rs. 6,83,224. Penalty proceedings for this year were also initiated under section 271(1)(a) for delay in filing the return, under section 273(1) for non-filing of the estimate, as also under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

    4. All these developments led the petitioner to amend his writ petition. He now prayed for (a) restoration of his Non-Resident Indian account in foreign currency with the Indian Overseas Bank which after attachment by the second respondent had been withdrawn on January 11, 1986, and June 12, 1986, and (b) for quashing all orders under section 241 of the Act and the assessment order for the assessment year 1988–89 creating a demand of tax and all other orders levying penalty, etc., for the assessment year 1988–89. The petitioner, therefore, wanted orders enabling him to have his Non-Resident Indian Account in foreign currency with interest accrued thereon in foreign currency restored ante. On account of the assessment order for the assessment year 1988–89, it is stated that a demand of Rs. 5,75,462 was created as a regular tax demand. A penalty of Rs. 6,41,720 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) and Rs. 3,60,967 and Rs. 1,15,510 as penalties, respectively, under sections 273(2)(b) and 271(1)(a) of the Act were also imposed. All these penalties were imposed on May 1, 1991. The assessment order for the assessment year 1988–89 is dated January 29, 1990.

    5. The second respondent, on September 9, 1991, filed his counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition. The facts have not been disputed. It is now stated that a special leave petition against the order of the High Court dismissing the petition of the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Act had been filed in the Supreme Court and orders under section 241 of the Act are being validly made by the respondents withholding the refund. Adjustment of tax demands and penalties for the assessment year 1988–89 is, however, not claimed.

    6. The petitioner had remitted to India from abroad a certain amount of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 17,16,928. For the assessment year 1986–87, the Assessing Officer held that out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 10,28,928 represented income of the petitioner from undisclosed sources. He taxed the petitioner on that. A penalty of Rs. 12,28,856 was also levied on February 24, 1986, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner deleting the addition of Rs. 10,28,928 and cancelled the penalty. This order by the Appellate Tribunal was made on May 14, 1987. The Revenue then filed a reference application under section 256(1) before the Appellate Tribunal which, as noted above, was rejected. The High Court also dismissed the petition of the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Act. It is stated that the Revenue then filed a special leave petition which is pending in the Supreme Court.

    7. In the counter-affidavit, it is also mentioned that for the assessment year 1987–88, the petitioner was assessed on the income of rupee one and no penalty proceedings were initiated, but for the assessment year 1988–89, the assessment was made on the interest income of Rs. 6,83,224 on the ground that the said interest had accrued on the refund of Rs. 16,17,105 due to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1986–87. It may be mentioned that the Assessing Officer had addressed a letter dated September 10, 1985, to the Manager, Indian Overseas-Bank, attaching the amounts lying in the two accounts of the petitioner which were in foreign currency. These two amounts in the FCNR/SDR Accounts of the petitioner amounted to U.S dollars 35,000 and U.S dollars 99,995. In the letter attaching these two amounts, it was mentioned that the equivalent of these amounts in rupees was, respectively, Rs. 4,55,000 and Rs. 12,99,935. Then these two attached amounts were withdrawn by the Assessing Officer from the Indian Overseas Bank by addressing two letters dated September 12, 1985, and September 18, 1985.

    8. All through, the plea of the Revenue had been that refund of the amount could not be granted to the petitioner in view of the powers exercised under section 241 of the Act. Section 241, before its amendment, with effect from April 1, 1989, was as under:

    “241. Power to withhold refund in certain cases.— Where an order giving rise to a refund is the subject-matter of an appeal or further proceeding or where any other proceeding under this Act is pending, and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue, the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner withhold the refund till such time as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may determine.”

    9. After April 1, 1989, section 241 as substituted is as under:

    “241. Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee as a result of an order under this Act or under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 143 after a return has been made under section 139 or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion, having regard to the fact that—

    (i) a notice has been issued, or is likely to be issued, under subsection (2) of section 143 in respect of the said return; or

    (ii) the order is the subject-matter of an appeal or further proceeding; or

    (iii) any other proceeding under this Act is pending,

    that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the Revenue, the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, withhold the refund till such time as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may determine.”

    10. Admittedly, after the success of the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal whose order was made on May 14, 1987, he became entitled to the refund of the amounts which had been withdrawn by the Assessing Officer from the accounts of the petitioner in the Indian Overseas Bank. The whole stress of the Revenue had been that pendency of the special leave petition in the Supreme Court would mean that there is no finality of the order entitling the petitioner to refund and that that was the subject-matter of further proceedings. In the counter-affidavit, the Revenue has clearly stated that the last order under section 241 of the Act was passed on March 8, 1991, permitting the withholding of the refund up to October 31, 1991, or till disposal of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, whichever was earlier. The petitioner does not dispute that such an order has been passed after as well and perhaps in force till this date.

    11. The petitioner disputed that any special leave petition had been filed by the Revenue, or if filed, was not listed in the Supreme Court all this period. On May 15, 1990, this court noticed the passing of the order under section 241 of the Act withholding the refund. It directed the respondents to file a detailed affidavit indicating what according to the Income-tax Department was the tax due and payable by the petitioner, or what would be the likely demand of tax against the petitioner. It also directed the respondents to indicate the nature or reason of the demand so as to justify the retention of the money under section 241 and whether the petitioner had been told of any order having been passed under this section and whether the reasons for passing that order had been communicated to the petitioner. It was directed that the reasons for retention of money should be filed along with the affidavit. This affidavit was never filed. Though nothing turns on this, it shows the conduct of the Department. On March 14, 1991, this court again recorded the submission of the respondents as under:

    “Counsel for the respondents states that against the order passed by this court under section 256(2), a special leave petition was filed, probably in the year 1989. The said special leave petition has not been listed, according to the learned counsel. The number of the special leave petition should be communicated to Mr. Bansal by April 1, 1991. Mr. Rajendra states that a request will be made in the Supreme Court on Monday the 8th of April, 1991, for the listing of the special leave petition. This date is being noted by us so that counsel for the petitioner herein has notice of the case being mentioned so that he can also request the Supreme Court for expeditious hearing of the special leave petition. This is without prejudice to the petitioner's contention that pendency of the special leave petition is no ground for withholding of the refund.”

    12. Nothing was done by the respondents in pursuance of this order. Then on December 2, 1991, this court again noticed that the question which arose in the petition was with regard to the refund of the tax which had been realised by the respondents in respect of the assessment year 1986–87 and money realised from the Non-Resident Indian account of the petitioner. It noticed that the Department had filed a special leave petition which had been pending since last two years and had not come up for preliminary hearing and in the meantime the order under section 241 had been passed. The court also noticed that it was evident that if the special leave petition was dismissed, the petitioner would be entitled to refund and the pendency of the petition and continuance of the order under section 241 was causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. A direction was issued to the respondents to make a request or mention in the Supreme Court by an application or otherwise and try to have the special leave petition listed at an early date. It was also directed that mention should be made within two months with advance information to be given to counsel for the petitioner. Nothing happened. Then on March 3, 1992, the court recorded that counsel for the Revenue was unable to give any information as to what had happened after the last order. Counsel stated that he had communicated to the first respondent that such direction had been issued by the court. As no information was available with counsel for the Department a direction was issued to the first respondent to file within two weeks an affidavit indicating as to “what had transpired to the special leave petition and why our directions of December 2, 1991, have not been complied with, if request has not so far been made to the Supreme Court”. On March 30, 1992, the court recorded the statement of counsel for the Revenue that the hearing in the Supreme Court had been fixed for April 20, 1992. The matter was thereafter adjourned for directions. On September 14, 1992, this court recorded that counsel for the Revenue had shown a letter dated May 1, 1992, from the Central Agency section of the Ministry of Law stating that the special leave petition filed by the Supreme Court could not be listed earlier for some reasons. Counsel requested for some more time and the adjournment was strenuously opposed by the petitioner. Still in the circumstances the matter was adjourned giving the Revenue a last opportunity. Till this date this court has not been informed of the date of the filing of the special leave petition, its number, or as to what happened in the special leave petition. There is, however, a letter dated January 23, 1992, of the first respondent addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-Ill, New Delhi, wherein it is mentioned that the Department had filed a special leave petition on October 17, 1989, which was pending, but as informed by standing counsel in the Supreme Court no special leave petition number had been allotted in the case and that same would be allotted after considering the matter regarding condonation of delay in the case. It was stressed in this letter that the matter being in dispute the refund had been withheld under section 241 to protect the interest of the Revenue because the assessee (petitioner) was a non-resident and if once refund was issued then the Department might not be able to recover the demand if it became due on account of the decision on the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The first respondent, therefore, requested that necessary steps be taken to have the special leave petition fixed for an early date. A copy of the order of this court dated December 2, 1991, was also sent by the first respondent to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax with an advance copy of the letter to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This is all about the special leave petition on the basis of which orders under section 241 of the Act had been issued one after the other.

    13. No further proceedings after the decisions in the appeals are pending under the Act. This court has not granted any certificate under section 261 of the Act that it is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. After dismissal of the application under section 256(2) of the Act filed by the Revenue the matter ended at that. No other proceedings under the Act are also pending. The Revenue is interpreting the sentence “the order is the subject-matter of an appeal or further proceeding” in section 241 as applicable to filing of a special leave petition in the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution. This is incorrect. Section 241 of the Act refers to the right of appeal provided under the Act and further proceedings connected therewith like application under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 256 of the Act or that under section. 261 of the Act. Section 241 can have no reference to proceedings under article 136 of the Constitution. Under this article, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or Tribunal. If the Revenue wants to withhold refund after filing a petition under article 136, it has to obtain stay from the Supreme Court and cannot rely on section 241. In this case, there is nothing to show pendency of a special leave petition, to say nothing of grant of any leave by the Supreme Court. Merely by filing a special leave petition in the registry of the Supreme Court after limitation had expired and not knowing its fate all these years and, thus, thwarting the right of the petitioner to the refund is something which is grossly illegal. In Suri Sons v. CIT, [1988] 169 ITR 320, a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court even held that the assessing authority was not justified in withholding the refund, in exercise of its power under section 241 of the Act, which had become due to the assessee merely for the reason that reference proceedings under section 256(1) of the Act initiated by the Revenue questioning the validity of the order under which the refund had become due were pending before the appropriate authority.

    14. Mr. Pandey referred to a decision of a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court in Suresh B. Jain v. P.K.P Nair, [1992] 194 ITR 148. This authority is to the effect that there is nothing wrong if interest payable to an assessee under section 244(1A) of the Act is set off and adjusted against the tax liability of an assessee under section 245 as if the said amount was a refund due to an assessee. We do not see how this judgment is relevant to the present case. Then reference has also been made to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. CIT, [1975] 100 ITR 401, where the court held that an order under section 241 of the Act could be made withholding the amount refundable to the assessee on the ground that the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the High Court was pending before the Supreme Court. From this judgment, it is not clear to us if the appeal in the Supreme Court was pending under section 261 of the Act. If this authority is for the proposition that where a special leave petition is filed in the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution an order under section 241 of the Act can be made, we are in respectful disagreement with the same.

    15. When this matter was being adjourned from time to time on the request of the Revenue for giving us the particulars of the special leave petition and the stage in which it was, we have been giving our mind that perhaps section 241 was not applicable. When the arguments were finally heard on May 13, 1993, counsel for the Revenue thrust into the hands of the petitioner a letter dated May 5, 1993, addressed to him by the Assessing Officer as if the Revenue had now come up with some trump card. This letter purportedly contains an order under section 245 of the Act and is as under:

    Shri Vijay Kr. Bhatti, 601, Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

    Sub: Withholding of refund under section 241 of the Income-tax Act

    A refund of Rs. 2,04,781 plus interest payable to you under section 244(1A) by the Government has been withheld by the undersigned till 30-6-1993, with the prior permission of the learned C.I.T, Delhi-V, New Delhi. This is for your information.

    Total refund due to you for the assessment year 1986–87 was as under:—

    Rs. Refund on account of regular tax 7,52,433 Refund on account of penalty 11,46,007 Total refund including interest of Rs. 2,81,330 18,98,440

    (Collections of Rs. 6,20,577 on 11-1-1986 and Rs. 9,96,532 on 10-6-1986, were made after attaching the bank account in Indian Overseas Bank).

    During the course of regular assessment for the assessment year 1988–89, regular tax demand of Rs. 5,75,462 for the assessment year 1988–89 was adjusted against refund of Rs. 18,98,440 and penalty demands of Rs. 6,41,420, Rs. 3,60,967 and Rs. 1,15,510 under section 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b) and 271(1)(a), respectively, for the assessment year 1988–89, aggregating to Rs. 11,15,197 were adjusted against the balance refund of Rs. 13,22,978 (Rs. 18,98,440-5,75,462 demand for the assessment year 1988–89) and now the balance refund of Rs. 2,07,781 (Rs. 13,22,978 − 11,15,197 demand adjusted) was/is due to you which has been withheld up to 30-6-1993, with the prior approval of the learned C.I.T, Delhi-V, New Delhi.

    Yours faithfully,

    (Sd.) S.R Bharti,

    Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

    Inv. Circle 7(1), New Delhi.”

    16. It does appear to us that this order has been issued in order to keep the petitioner deprived of his lawful refund. Section 245 of the Act is as under:

    “245. Where under any Of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under this Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under this section.”

    17. There is nothing on the record or even in the letter to suggest that before passing the order, the provisions of section 245 were complied with. For the purpose of any set off an intimation has to be given in writing to the assessee of the action proposed to be taken under this section. Earlier to this order it has never been the case of the Revenue to claim any set off. This order purporting to be under section 245 of the Act is neither fair, nor just, nor reasonable and has to be ignored. This order also shows scant respect by the authorities for the pendency of these proceedings in this court and this does not commend itself to us, to say the least.

    18. We have not been told by the Revenue any reason as to why assessments for years subsequent to the assessment year 1988–89 were not taken though interest was accruing all this period on the refund due to the petitioner. We are of the view that the assessment order for the assessment year 1988–89 and the penalties imposed on the petitioner have no meaning particularly when we are of the view that withholding of the refund by the respondents was illegal and all orders passed under section 241 of the Act, after dismissal of the application under section 256(2) of the Act by this court, were without jurisdiction and illegal. Rather it has been contended by the petitioner that the interest accrued on non-resident account maintained in foreign exchange is not liable to tax. There has been no answer to this by the Revenue.

    19. This petition is allowed. The amounts of U.S dollars 35,000 (Rs. 4,55,000) and U.S dollars 99,995 (Rs. 12,99,935) along with interest accrued thereon be deposited back by the respondents in the FCNR/SDR accounts of the petitioner in the Indian Overseas Bank, Rohit House, 3, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, within one month from today. If any permission is required for crediting the amount of interest in the accounts of the petitioner, a non-resident Indian as aforesaid, from the Reserve Bank of India, or any other authority under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, or any other law, the same shall be obtained by the Indian Overseas Bank. This case is one glaring example of the indifferent attitude of the assessing authority. When all round efforts are being made by the State to enter into free market economy, and to improve the foreign exchange resources of the country, a non-resident Indian has been denied of his own money due to orders which are patently illegal. We really fail to understand as to how successive orders had been made to deny the nonresident Indian of his lawful dues, first on the basis of orders withholding refund, then on hypothetical assessment on interest, and then claiming adjustment. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we should impose exemplary costs on the Revenue which we assess at Rs. 11,000 (including counsel fee of Rs. 5,500). Rule is made absolute.

    20. A copy of this order will be sent to the Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, by the registry for compliance.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Vijay Kumar Bhati v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another
    (May 21, 1993)