$ 3 to 7 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4489/2020 & CM APPLs.16188-16189/2020 M/S UMESH ATREE (HUF) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 Respondent Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 4490/2020 & CM APPLs.16190-16191/2020 MRS. USHA RANI (THROUGH LRS) Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 4491/2020 & CM APPLs.16192-16193/2020 M/S MANOJ ATREE (HUF) Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. W.P. (C) 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 & 4493 of 2020 Page 1 of 4 WITH + W.P.(C) 4492/2020 & CM APPLs.16194-16195/2020 M/S MUKESH ATREE (HUF) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 ...... Respondent Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. AND + W.P.(C) 4493/2020 & CM APPLs.16196-16197/2020 MR. MANOHAR LAL ATREE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Shivankar Rao, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. petitions have been listed before this Bench by Registry in view of urgency expressed therein. 2. same have been heard by way of video conferencing. W.P. (C) 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 & 4493 of 2020 Page 2 of 4 3. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to respondent to decide applications filed by petitioners under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for refund of income tax inadvertently paid on interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for various assessment years. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass HUF, (2009) 8 SCC 412 has held that income tax is not payable on such interest received, as it is not income. He further submits that assessee even after making payment of tax either under misrepresentation or mistake, can claim refund on income that was not taxable. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners states that there has been unreasonably long delay of nearly four years in deciding applications. He submits that non adjudication of applications filed by petitioners is contrary to Circular dated 9th June, 2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. 6. Issue notice. 7. Mr. Sunil Agarwal and Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra accept notice on behalf of respondent. They state that different High Courts subsequent to judgment of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam Dass HUF (supra) have held that tax is payable on interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, under head income from other sources . 8. They further state that most of applications filed by petitioners are barred by limitation under same circular dated 9 th June, 2015, relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners. W.P. (C) 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 & 4493 of 2020 Page 3 of 4 9. However, keeping in view limited prayer sought in writ petitions, same are disposed of with direction to respondent to decide applications filed by petitioners within eight weeks in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of parties, including plea of maintainability, are left open. 10. order be uploaded on website forthwith. Copy of order be also forwarded to learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 23, 2020 sb W.P. (C) 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 & 4493 of 2020 Page 4 of 4 Umesh Atree (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income-tax-11