The CBDT has issued a letter dated 20.09.2013 to the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax pointing out that despite earlier instructions to pay over the refunds due for FY 2011-12 the progress so far has been tardy. The CCsIT have been directed to take necessary action and direct the Assessing Officers to issue the refunds for AY 2011-12 without further delay. The CCsIT have also been directed to personally monitor the progress in the above respect and send a report on the matter by 15.10.2013 with reasons for non-issue of refunds, if any.
CBDT letter dt. 20.09.2013 directing CCsIT to release refunds for FY 2011-12 (132.6 KiB, 2,372 hits)
GOOD THAT CBDT HAS GIVEN THIS DIRECTION. BUT HAVE THEY CHECKED WHETHER THERE ARE ANY PENDING CASES. WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN AGAINST NON ISSUANCE.
Thanks learnded expert for the delay in refund comments
Rider
Cases where Intimation under section 143 (1) was not sent but the time limit laid down had expired call for a special mention. For, if perceptively considered and strictly construed, in such cases, the residuary provision of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 244A,- not clause (a), more particularly, the proviso thereto,-it could be urged, would come into play and interest to be granted accordingly.
It is on that premise, in case of refunds processed by CPC, the fear is that unless the system in place has the interest calculation in-built appropriately on the lines indicated above, refund granted may not have interest included automatically.
Sharing Own View:
This is the latest in the series of circulars through which the CBDT has , going that extra mile, has been good enough to once again urge the authorities down the line not to delay any further but expeditiously settle all the refund claims for the assessment year 2011-12.
The question of interest payable by the government on such refunds has been left open. However, even at the time of issuing the refunds, the AOs (or the CPC in respect of e’filed returns), it is expected, should take care of interest due and include it; as, otherwise, refundees would be subjected to a fresh spate of hassle and hardship in having to take up and pursue separately such claim . to the end of grant of interest.
In its recent land mark judgment (PIL), the Delhi HC, it is noted, has, in more than one context, made it quite clear that many of the problems could have been avoided had the AO followed, besides others, the rules book in regard to the mandates of , besides others, section 143 (1). In all such cases, it is apprehended, interest due may not be readily granted, unless the scheme of the related provisions, inter alia, section 244 A, rw section 143 (1), are kept in full view; that is, closely and harmoniously read and properly understood.
According to one’s understanding, if so done, entitlement to interest cannot be denied or disputed, even in those cases where the mandate of Intimation under section 143 (1) was not complied with, and the time limit laid down has expired.
It is for taxpayers / their advising professionals to make an in-depth study, and if so convinced, have the claim for interest pursued, if not granted along with refund of excess tax.
When the CBDT is aware that the officers have not taken any action for issue of refund …why don’t they fix accountability and take disciplinary action as per the terms of employment ….why one more chance to prove Reasonable cause ? more so when the assessees are not provided any opportunity to explain reasonable cause in the draconian section 234E. All citizens should be treated Equally.