Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) MESSRS. Hira Lal Jagarnath Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has sought a writ of certiorari from this court to quash the communication (wrongly described as order) issued on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, refusing to allow interest on the amount due to the petitioner by way of refund of excess income-tax paid by him. Admittedly, the petitioner paid large sums of money by way of income-tax under an assessment order. It challenged successively the assessment order in an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then by a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This also did not succeed. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, a reference was made to this court under Section 66(1) of the Act. The reference was answered in favour of the petitioner by this court on November 1, 1966. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order under Section 66(5) of the Act on June 6, 1968, in conformity with the decision of this court.
(2.) BOTH on the date when this court answered the reference in favour of the petitioner as also on the date when the Tribunal passed the order under Section 66(5) of the Act, the Act of 1961 was in force. We have heard Mr. Upadhyay for the petitioner and Dr. Misra for the income-tax department. The only question that requires consideration is whether, for the purposes of the refund, the provisions of the 1961 Act or the provisions of the Act would apply in the present case.
(3.) SECTION 297 of the 1961 Act deals with repeals and savings. Clause (2)(i) of that provision reads : "297. (1)..... (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act),--.... (i) where, in respect of any assessment completed before the commencement of this Act, a refund falls due after such commencement or default is made after such commencement in the payment of any sum due under such completed assessment, the provisions of this Act relating to interest payable by the Central Goverment on refunds and interest payable by the assessee for default shall apply. " Admittedly, the petitioner became entitled to the refund by virtue of the answer given by this court on November 1, 1966, and by virtue of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(5) of the Act on June 6, 1968. Clearly, therefore, the refund fell due after the commencement of the 1961 Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the new Act relating to refund would apply in supersession of the provisions of the Act.;