D. MALLIGA Vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are heard and disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing as they arise under similar facts and circumstances as in a decision of this Court rendered in the case of S. Thigarajan v. Asstt. CIT (2009) 185 Taxman 20 (Karn) .

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are: The Petitioner is an individual and an employee of M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "company" for brevity). The Petitioner was granted stock options under the employees stock option scheme framed by the company. The Petitioner having exercised his option during the assessment year 1999 -2000, the same was treated as a perquisite and the Dy. CIT by his order under Section 201 passed an order against the company. The tax and interest determined thereof due from the company were recovered as TDS from the employees pursuant to the order passed by the Dy. CIT. The amount demanded from the company was accordingly discharged and Form No. 16 had been issued to the Petitioner by the said company. The Petitioner has paid the following sums by way of tax deduction as per the following table: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1346_TLKAR0_2010.htm</FRM>

(4.) IN view of the fact that the proceedings resulting to refund are delayed for the reasons not attributable to the Petitioner, the question of exclusion of any period in computing the interest does not arise in terms of Section 244A(2). Therefore, it is contended that the Petitioner would be entitled to interest even in terms of Section 244A(3), which reads as follows: