MOHIT SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceeding under S. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was carried out at the residential premises of the petitioner, and Panchnama was prepared on 12th Sept., 2003. As stated, search and seizure operation under S. 132 of the Act was finally concluded. Eventually, as the factual matrix would exposit, the block assessment was completed on 23rd March, 2006 for the asst. yrs. 1998-99 to 2003-04 under S. 153A and assessment for the year 2004-05 under S. 143(3) of the Act. Ultimately, it was held by the AO that there was no tax liability.

(2.) AS pleaded, the assessee entered into communication with the AO for return of Rs. 17,00,000 (rupees seventeen lakhs only) vide letter dt. 11th Dec., 2006 and finally, the amount was refunded on 15th April, 2008. Thereafter, the assessee-petitioner represented for grant of interest and the Revenue granted interest @ 6 per cent amounting to Rs. 1,91,704 (rupees one lakh ninety one thousand seven hundred four only) on 16th May, 2008 covering the period from 7th May, 2004 to 23rd March, 2006. This was as per S. 132B(4) of the Act, which reads as under :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has commended us to the decisions in Suresh B. Jain vs. P.K.P. Nair & Ors. (1992) 194 ITR 148 (Bom), CIT vs. Narendra Doshi (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 411 : (2002) 254 ITR 606 (SC), D.J. Works vs. Dy. CIT (1992) 102 CTR (Guj) 2 : (1992) 195 ITR 227 (Guj), CIT vs. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 365 (Guj), Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (2006) 200 CTR (SC) 505 : (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC), CIT vs. Jawahar Lal Rastogi (1970) 78 ITR 486 (SC), Bhagwan Prasad Agrawal vs. CIT & Ors. (2006) 201 CTR (All) 335 : (2006) 282 ITR 189 (All), K. Choyi vs. Syed Abdulla Bafakky Thangal & Ors. (1980) 123 ITR 435 (SC), National Horticulture Board vs. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 107 : (2002) 253 ITR 12 (P&H).