Delhi High Court
M/S Umesh Atree (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 on 23 July, 2020
$~ 3 to 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4489/2020 & CM APPLs.16188-16189/2020
M/S UMESH ATREE (HUF) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4490/2020 & CM APPLs.16190-16191/2020
MRS. USHA RANI (THROUGH LRS) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate.
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4491/2020 & CM APPLs.16192-16193/2020
M/S MANOJ ATREE (HUF) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.
W.P. (C) 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 & 4493 of 2020 Page 1 of 4
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4492/2020 & CM APPLs.16194-16195/2020
M/S MUKESH ATREE (HUF) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4493/2020 & CM APPLs.16196-16197/2020
MR. MANOHAR LAL ATREE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with
Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
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
Act, under the head "income from other sources".
8. They further state that most of the applications filed by the petitioners
are barred by limitation under the same circular dated 9 th 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.
MANMOHAN, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 23, 2020
sb
