Allowing the petition the Court held that the denial of additional interest was based on the following reasons, namely, amalgamation of the assessee, non-availability of the functionality of the Department’s portal and the prevailing covid-19 situation. The primary rationale behind denying refund to the assessee by the Revenue was non-functionality of the portal due to the amalgamation of the assessee. It was the case of the Revenue that due to the amalgamation of the assessee, the appeal effect order could not be passed on the old permanent account number of the assessee since it was non-existent. It was also the case of the Revenue that in case, the appeal effect was given on the new permanent account number, there was no functionality on the Departmental portal to migrate the tax credit from the old permanent account number to the new permanent account number of the assessee. The responsibility imposed upon the assessee to intimate the Revenue the scheme of amalgamation, stood fulfilled. The amalgamation was permissible and had duly been carried out. It could not, at a later stage, be treated to be detrimental to the interest of the assessee and that too, for denying statutory benefits. Furthermore, the non-functionality of the Departmental portal due to the deletion of the old permanent account number of the assessee, pursuant to the amalgamation of the assessee, in all possibility, could never come under the umbrella of section 244A(2) of the Act, i. e., delay attributable to the assessee. The non-functionality of the portal was an administrative difficulty on the part of the Revenue. The technical glitch of the portal maintained by the Revenue which had not incorporated appropriate provisions for the transfer of tax credit in lieu of the amalgamation of the assessee was a contingency which the Revenue ought to have resolved. Thus, the non-functionality of the portal could not have been attributed to the assessee and statutory interest could not be denied by taking resort to section 244A(2) of the Act.

Court also held that  concomitants of the principles of equity can be resorted to when the remedy prescribed under the law is impermissible or unjustified. It is a trite position of law that principle of equity is not the panacea to cure any defect rather it can only supplement the law and not supplant it. It was not the case of the Revenue that the covid-19 pandemic was attributable to the assessee. The Revenue may have had some difficulties in dealing with such instances, but that would not absolve the Revenue from the rigour of section 244A(1A) of the Act. Notably, since the Revenue had already granted the interest under section 244A(1) of the Act without attributing any delay to the assessee, there was no cogent reason for not granting additional interest as mandatorily prescribed under section 244A(1A) of the Act. In fact, the reasons of delay attributed to the assessee were without any logical explanation and lacked merit. Revenue is directed to grant the statutorily prescribed interest as mandated under section 244A(1A) of the Act to the assessee, with due expediency.(AY. 2010-11)