Whether the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is governed by the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1922?
The question that yet remained was whether plaintiff assessee was entitled to the payment of interest on the said refunds under Section 66 7 of the 1922 Act.
Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff assessee for payment of interest on the refunds came to be companysidered by the authorities under the provisions of 1961 Act and numberclaim for interest was held to survive.
12,282.11 together with pendente lite and further interest at 6 p.a.
The said sum of Rs.2,01,146.62 was refunded on 17.12.1966 and the sum of Rs.19,126.16 towards Excess Profit Tax refunded on 9.12.1967.
In the meanwhile, on 1.4.1962, the Income Tax Act 1961 Act had companye into force.
It was plaintiff assessees case that he met this obligation by raising funds from the Central Bank of India Ltd. On the mortgage of his properties incurring heavy liability towards interest on the mortgage loans.
It would appear, pursuant to the order of assessment dated, 23.9.1951 made by the Income Tax officer, as modified by the appellate orders dated 15.5.1952 and 27.3.1957 of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, respectively, a sum of Rs.2,57,383.87 was recovered from him on 27.3.1957 under threat of companyrcive process.
Under the 1922 Act and the Excess Profit Tax Act 1940, appellant was entitled to claim interest on the refund of taxes under circumstances companytemplated by Section 66 7 of the 1922 Act.
11, the suit is decreed directing the respondent defendant to pay to the appellant plaintiffs the aforesaid sum of Rs.
The Learned Single Judge of the High Court who tried the suit recorded findings against plaintiff assessee on issue 4 and in his favour on issue number6.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 14.2.1980 of the Delhi High Court in First Appeal O.S. No.
In the present case, the reference was pending when the present Act came into force.
Plaintiff assessee thereafter, instituted the present suit against the Union of India for recovery of the interest under Section 66 7 of the 1922 Act alleging that the assessment in the present case must be held to have been companypleted before the companymencement of the 196 1 Act according to the assessee the assessment was companypleted the moment the income tax officer made the order dated, 28.3.1951 and that, therefore, the claim for interest squarely fell within Section 66 7 of the 1922 Act read with, and saved by, Section 297 2 a of the 1961 Act.
But Section 297 2 i provided that A where, in respect of any assessment companypleted before the companymencement of this Act, a refund falls due after such companymencement or default is made after such companymencement in the payment of any sum due under such companypleted assessment, the provisions of this Act relating to interest payable by the Central Government on refunds and interest payable by the assessee for default shall apply.
affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal dated, 28.7.1972 in Suit number 372 of 1969 entered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
17 of 1972 on its file.
12,282.11 claimed by way of interest on the refund of excess profit tax and in reversal of that part of the judgment and decree of the High Court pertaining to this claim of Rs.12,282.
4 6 require to he numbericed Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTlON Civil Appeal No.
A sum of Rs.2,01,146.62 and a sum of Rs.19,126.16 became refundable by way of income tax and Excess Profit Tax, respectively, on such recomputation of the income.
S. Nariman and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.
The suit claim companyprised of a sum of Rs.1,17,358.87 sought by way of interest on the refund of income tax and Rs.12,282.11 claimed as representing interest on the refund of Excess Profit Tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the legal representatives of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, the unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the Judgment and decree, dated, 14.2.1980 of the High Court of Delhi in First Appeal o.S. No.
Plaintiff sued for recovery of interest on certain refunds of Income tax and Excess Profit Tax claimed to be statutorily due and payable to him under Section 66 7 of the Income tax Act 1922 here in after referred to as the 1922 Act on the refunds of the taxes.
4034 of 1983.
The necessary and material facts may briefly be stated Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava was assessed in the capacity of Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family for Income and Excess Profit Taxes for the assessment year 1947 48.
The assessments were made under the Income Tax Act 1922 Act and the Excess Profit Tax Act 1940 respectively.
17 of 1972.
C. Manchanda, K.C. Dua, S. Rajjappa and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
However, the quantum of both the taxes came to be substantially reduced pursuant to the companysequential orders, dated, 16.9.1966 made under Section 66 5 of the 1922 Act and under Section 66 5 read with Section 2 1 of Excess Profit Tax Act 1940 respectively giving effect to the orders of the High Court in certain references under P Section 66 1 of the Act.
