In the return of income filed by the assessee, interest on the delayed refund of tax deducted at source from interest was also claimed. However, no interest on delayed refund was granted by the petitioner. On a writ petition the Court held  that the assessees were not at fault for not filing the return of income to claim the refund as the deductor, i. e., the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department neither informed the assessee about the deduction of tax nor was form 16A which is mandatory, issued. On the contrary, when the assessees made representations by informing the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department about the wrong mentioning of the provision for deduction of tax in form 26AS issued as per return of tax deducted at source to be filed by the deductor, no reply was given. It was clear that the assessees were not at fault for the delay caused in filing the return of income claiming the refund of the tax deducted at source as no tax was payable by the assessee on the amount of interest under section 194LA of the Act. Even as per sub-section (2) of section 244A of the Act, as it existed during the relevant assessment year 2013-14, when the proceedings resulting in the refund were not delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable only can be excluded from the period for which interest is payable under sub-section (1) or (1A) or (1B) to section 244A of the Act. In the facts of the case, the words “or the deductor, as the case may be,” which were inserted with effect from April 1, 2017 would not be applicable as the assessees had been permitted to file the refund claim for the assessment year 2013-14 after condonation of delay and such delay in claiming the refund could not be said to be attributable to the assessees as the assessees were not made aware about the deduction of tax at source by the deductor in the absence of issuance of form 16A which was mandatorily required as per rule 31(3) of the 1962 Rules. (AY.2013-14)