- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
New Woodlands v. Commr. Of Income Tax
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner firm (the "assessee") paid income-tax pursuant to original orders of assessment for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 (referred to in the record as Exts. P1 dated 16-3-1972, P2 dated 16-3-1972 and P3 dated 19-3-1973). The assessee appealed those assessment orders. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention that the Income Tax Officer had not conducted a proper enquiry and, by Exts. P4 and P5 dated 15-9-1972 and 24-10-1975 respectively, quashed the original assessment orders and remanded the matters to the Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration and recomputation.
On remand the Income Tax Officer made fresh assessment orders (Exts. P6 to P8 dated 12-11-1976) in respect of the three years, substantially reducing the originally determined tax; the excess tax paid was refunded and the assessee was no longer aggrieved on that point.
The narrow dispute before the court is whether the assessee is entitled to interest under S.244 on the amounts it had paid pursuant to notices of demand based on the original assessment orders (Exts. P1 to P3) for the period commencing three months after the end of the month in which the Appellate Authority's orders were passed and ending on the date of the fresh assessment orders—on the premise that the Income Tax Officer did not refund those sums within the statutory three-month period.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244 of the Income-tax Act on amounts paid pursuant to notices of demand based on the original assessment orders that were quashed and remanded, where no refund was made within three months from the end of the month in which the appellate orders were passed.
- Whether the quashing of the original assessment orders and remand for fresh consideration automatically creates a right to refund of amounts paid (and therefore triggers the S.240/S.244 refund-and-interest mechanism), or whether no refund becomes due until a fresh assessment determines the correct liability.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner's counsel argued that when the Appellate Authority quashed the original assessment orders and remanded the matters, the original assessment orders "disappeared" or merged into the appellate orders and thereby lost independent effect; consequently, the notices of demand based on the original orders fell to the ground.
- On that basis the petitioner contended that amounts paid under those demands became immediately refundable upon the appellate orders and, because the refund was not made within the three-month period prescribed by S.244, interest should have accrued in favour of the assessee.
- The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Income-Tax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty ((1964) 52 I.T.R. 538), where the majority held that when an appellate authority reduced the assessment the original assessment stood annulled and a fresh demand notice was required before treating the assessee as a defaulter. The petitioner also relied on the Allahabad High Court decision in Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P ((1974) 94 I.T.R. 187), which held that Ss.240 and 244 were attracted in a remand situation similar to this case.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments in the same structured form as the petitioner's submissions. The court's reasoning discusses statutory provisions and subsequent legislation affecting the position, which reflect the legal context relied upon by the Revenue.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Income-Tax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty ((1964) 52 I.T.R. 538) | Held that when an appellate authority allows part of an assessee's claim and reduces tax, the original assessment order stands annulled; a fresh demand notice was required before the assessee could be treated as a defaulter. | The court described this decision and the majority holding; but it explained that subsequent legislation (the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964) negated the practical effect of that Supreme Court finding by removing the need for a fresh demand in the event of reduction on appeal. |
| Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P ((1974) 94 I.T.R. 187) | The Allahabad High Court held that Ss.240 and 244 applied in a case where the Appellate Authority remanded for fresh assessment, i.e., that refund (and interest) was attracted on remand. | The court considered this authority as supporting the petitioner's position but explicitly disagreed with it, holding that the View in 94 I.T.R. 187 was incorrect in light of the Validation Act and the proper interpretation of Ss.240 and 244. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by analysing the statutory text. Section 240 provides that where, as a result of an order passed in appeal or other proceeding under the Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the Income-tax Officer shall refund the amount without the assessee having to make any claim. Section 244(1) prescribes payment of simple interest at 12% per annum where such a refund is due and the Income-tax Officer does not grant the refund within three months from the end of the month in which the order is passed.
The pivotal inquiry was whether a remand by the Appellate Authority (quashing the original assessment and directing a fresh consideration) itself creates a situation where a refund "becomes due" under S.240, thereby invoking S.244 if the refund is not made in time.
The court considered the petitioner's argument (supported by the Seghu Buchiah Setty decision and the Allahabad High Court decision) that annulment of the original assessment by the appellate order makes the demand and any payments under it immediately refundable. The court accepted that the assessment orders merge in the appellate orders, but analysed the effect of later legislation enacted after Seghu Buchiah Setty.
The court relied on the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (referred to in the opinion as the Validation Act of 1964), particularly section 3, which provides that where government dues are reduced in an appeal or proceeding it shall not be necessary to serve a fresh notice of demand, that the Taxing Authority must give intimation of reduction, and that proceedings initiated on the basis of the existing notice of demand may continue in relation to the finally determined amount. The court interpreted this amendment as demonstrating legislative intent that a reduction in tax on appeal should not automatically invalidate the original notice of demand insofar as tax is finally determined to be due.
Extending that legislative rationale, the court addressed the specific case of a remand (where the appellate authority has quashed the assessment and directed a fresh determination). The court concluded that there is no reason to treat a remand differently from a reduction: the enforceability of the original notice of demand is qualified by and subject to the fresh determination of liability. The object of remand, the court held, is to enable correct computation of liability; refund is only the consequence of that fresh determination if and to the extent excess tax has been paid.
On this basis the court held that no refund becomes due immediately upon remand. Because S.240 only applies where refund "becomes due" as a result of an order, and because no refund becomes due until the fresh assessment determines the correct liability, S.244 (which provides interest where such a refund is not granted within three months) is not attracted by the mere fact of remand. Thus the petitioner was not entitled to interest for the intervening period prior to the fresh assessments.
The court expressly stated its disagreement with the Allahabad High Court decision in 94 I.T.R. 187, finding that decision to be incorrect in light of the Validation Act and the correct interpretation of Ss.240 and 244. The court concluded that the impugned orders of the Income-tax Officer and Commissioner (Exts. P9 and P15) refusing the petitioner's claim for interest were "impeccable."
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is DISMISSED. The court held that where an appellate authority quashes an assessment and remands the matter for fresh consideration, no refund becomes due immediately on remand; refund (and therefore interest under S.244 for delayed refund) arises only after a fresh computation determines that excess tax was paid.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the orders refusing the assessee's claim for interest (Exts. P9 and P15) are upheld and the assessee is not entitled to interest under S.244 for the period between the appellate orders and the fresh assessment orders.
- The court emphasised that the Validation Act of 1964 means that original notices of demand remain enforceable to the extent of the amount finally determined to be due, and that remand is aimed at recalculation rather than automatically creating a refundable obligation. The court explicitly rejected the contrary view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in (1974) 94 I.T.R. 187.
- No costs were ordered: the court made no order as to costs.
1. The question is whether the petitioner firm (the “assessee”) is entitled to interest on the income-tax paid by it as per the notices of demand when the orders of assessment were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the Income Tax Officer has not refunded the amounts paid as per the notices of demand within three months from the end of the month in which the order of the Appellate Authority was passed. The assessee paid tax on the basis of Exts. P1 dated 16-3-1972, P2 dated 16-3-1972 and P3 dated 19-3-1973 which respectively are the original orders of assessment for the years 1968-1969, 1969-1970 and 1970-1971. The assessee filed appeals against the orders of assessment. By Exts. P4 and P5 dated 15-9-1972 and 24-10-1975 respectively the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention that no proper enquiry has been conducted by the Income Tax Officer. The Appellate Authority accordingly quashed Exts. P1 to P3 orders of assessment and remanded the matter to the Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration of the various contentions of the assessee and for fresh computation of the tax due. Thereupon the Income Tax Officer passed fresh orders of assessments, Exts. P6 to P8 dated 12-11-1976, for the three years in question. Considerable reduction was made in the tax originally determined as a result of which the excess tax paid was refunded to the assessee. The assessee is no longer aggrieved on that count. The question now is, as I stated earlier, whether the assessee is entitled to interest on the total amount paid by it as per the notices of demand based upon Exts. P1 to P3 for the period commencing on the expiry of three months after the end of the month in which the orders of the Appellate Authority were passed and ending on the date of the fresh assessment orders. The answer depends upon whether the assessee was entitled to refund of the tax paid when the original orders of assessment were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. If the assessee was entitled to refund in such circumstances, then, of course, the assessee is also entitled to interest for the amount not refunded within three months from the date prescribed under S. 244.
2. S. 240 of the Income-Tax Act reads:—
“Refund on appeal, etc.— Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the Income-tax Officer shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf;”
(emphasis supplied)
S. 244(1) of the Act reads:—
“Interest on refund where no claim is needed.— (1) Where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in S. 240 and the Income-tax Officer does not grant the refund within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed, the Central Government shall pay to the assessee simple interest at twelve per cent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. S. 240 postulates refund consequent upon an order passed in appeal or other proceeding under the Act. If, as a result of an order passed in appeal, refund becomes due, then, S. 240 says, such refund shall be made without the assessee having to make a claim for it. Where S. 240 applies. S. 244 is automatically attracted. In such a case where refund is not made within the time prescribed, interest accrues in favour of the assessee. The question is whether any amount has been ordered to be refunded to the assessee.
4. The petitioner's counsel Shri Paripoornan submits that with the orders of the Appellate Authority the original orders of assessment disappeared and lost their identity. They had been merged in the final orders of the Appellate Authority. The appellate orders having superseded the original orders of assessment, notices of demand fell to the ground. Consequently any amount paid on the basis of such demand was immediately refundable. Where such refund is not made within the time prescribed, interest accrues in favour of the assessee, so runs the argument. In support of this contention counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Income-Tax Officer v. Seghu Buchiah Setty ((1964) 52 I.T.R 538). That was a case where, as a result of the order in appeal, the tax liability was reduced. The question was whether in such a case fresh demand notice was called for. The majority of the learned Judges held that the amount of tax assessed having been reduced as a result of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, a fresh demand notice had to be served on the assessee before he could be treated as a defaulter and recovery proceedings initiated against him Speaking for the majority, Sarkar, J. said that the original assessment order stood annulled when the Appellate Authority allowed a part of the claim of the assessee and reduced the tax. This is what he said:—
“In fact section 31(3)(a) contemplates an annulment of the original assessment order itself; the demand under section 29 or section 45 is not annulled directly by it”.
5. The Supreme Court held that although the demand as such was not annulled, the assessment stood annulled. Relying on this principle, counsel contends that where there is an annulment of the assessment, the demand also becomes totally ineffective as a result of which whatever is collected on the basis of the demand becomes a sum repayable to the assessee. That is an amount, counsel says, which is refundable as per S. 240. If that argument is correct, then S. 244 is automatically attracted. Counsel also relies upon the principle stated by the Allahabad High Court in Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P ((1974) 94 I.T.R 187) which was a case almost identical to the facts of this case. There also an order of remand was made by the Appellate Authority with a direction to make a fresh assessment. The court held that Ss. 240 and 244 were attracted.
6. Consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision cited above stating that a fresh demand was required wherever a reduction was allowed in appeal, the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 was enacted. S. 3 of this Act reads:—
“3. Continuation and validation of certain proceedings— (1) Where any notice of demand in respect of any Government dues is served upon an assessee by a Taxing Authority under any scheduled Act, and any appeal or other proceeding is filed or taken in respect of such Government dues, then—
(a) ….………
(b) Where such Government dues are reduced in such appeal or proceeding,—
(i) it shall not be necessary for the Taxing Authority to serve upon the assessee a fresh notice of demand;
(ii) the Taxing Authority shall give intimation of the fact of such reduction to the assessee, and where a certificate has been issued to the Tax Recovery Officer for the recovery of such amount, also to that officer;
(iii) any proceedings initiated on the basis of the notice or notices of demand served upon the assessee before the disposal of such appeal or proceeding may be continued in relation to the amount so reduced from the stage at which such proceedings stood immediately before such disposal;
(c) no proceedings in relation to such Government dues (including the imposition of penalty or charging of interest) shall be invalid by reason only that no fresh notice of demand was served upon the assessee after the disposal of such appeal or proceeding or that such Government dues have been enhanced or reduced in such appeal or proceeding:”
7. By this amendment the need for fresh notice of demand where tax has been reduced in appeal is dispensed with. The legislative intent is that a reduction of tax by an appellate Authority shall not affect the original demand, but the original demand is enforceable to the extent that tax is finally determined to be due as per the order of the Appellate Authority. This amendment has thus negatived the finding of the Supreme Court to the contrary in the decision cited above.
8. The Validation Act of 1964 has made it clear that the notice of demand remains unaffected by the fate of the appeal to the extent of the amount that is finally determined to be due. If this is the effect of a reduction of tax by the Appellate Authority, what is the position where the Appellate Authority has not reduced the tax but has annulled the order of assessment with a direction to the assessing authority to make a fresh determination of the tax? Is the notice of demand annulled thereby as a result of which the amount paid thereunder no longer was legally retained by the Department?
9. Counsel contends rightly that the orders of assessment have merged in the appellate orders. But that does not mean, as provided in the Validation Act, the notices of demand have likewise merged. A notice of demand is a consequential order made on the basis of the original order of assessment. If fresh notice of demand is not required under the Act where the original order of assessment was superseded by an Appellate order reducing the amount of tax, I see no reason why a fresh notice is required where the appellate authority has set aside the original order of assessment and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The fate of the demand is the same in both cases. The notice of demand remains valid and effective to the extent that the tax is finally determined to be due and payable by the assessee. This, I think, is the natural and logical result of the amendment introduced by the Validation Act. Just as in the case of reduction, so in the case of a remand, the enforceability of the notice of demand is qualified by and subject to the fresh determination of the liability.
10. If this is the correct interpretation of the law, which, as far as I can see, it is, then no amount is refundable upon remand. What is required by an order of remand is not to refund the money collected as per the original orders, but to re-compute the amount of tax that is payable by the assessee. The original assessment is annulled, not with a view to refund, but with a view to the correct determination of the liability. Refund is only the consequence of that determination. The object of remand is therefore not to refund, but to recalculate, and then to refund the excess, if any. That being the position, the question of interest as per S. 244 does not arise until a fresh computation of the tax is made by fresh assessment. With great respect, I do not accept as correct law the views expressed to the contrary by the Allahabad High Court in 94 ITR. 187. In the circumstances, Exts. P9 and P15, which respectively are orders of the Income-Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-Tax refusing the assessee's claim for interest as aforesaid, are impeccable. The challenge against them fails The O.P is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
11. Dismissed.
Alert