N.C.KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) AS this writ petition as also S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1659 of 1982 filed by the petitioner involve the same point, both these writ petitions are being decided together. The brief facts are as under :
(2.) THE assessee -petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 49,350 for the asst. year 1973 -74 as advance tax and a sum of Rs. 78,025 for the asst. year 1974 -75 on that account. The assessments for the years 1973 -74 and 1974 -75 were made by the ITO, vide orders dt. 31st Dec., 1975, and 31st March, 1977, respectively, and in both the assessment orders the petitioner was held liable to pay tax more than the advance tax deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner - assessee felt aggrieved by the assessment orders passed by the ITO for both the abovesaid years and filed appeals against them. After hearing the appeals the AAC came to the conclusion that the income of the assessee for the abovesaid two years was nil and, as such, the assessee -petitioner was entitled to get a refund of the sums deposited by the petitioner for the relevant two years. The amounts in question were refunded to the petitioner with interest up to the date on which the order of assessment was passed by the ITO for the relevant years. The petitioner challenged that order by filing a revision petition before the CIT, Income -tax, Jaipur, who, vide the impugned order dt. 19th Aug., 1980, came to the conclusion that the interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner was to be paid to him till the date the order was passed by the ITO, i.e., December 31, 1975, for the asst. yr. 1973 -74 and till March 31, 1977, for the asst. year 1974 -75, and no interest was to be paid for the period thereafter, i.e., till the amount was refunded to the assessee - petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition in respect of the order relating to the asst. year 1973 -74 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1659 of 1982 in respect of the order relating to the asst. year 1974 -75.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case. Shri Ranka, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner -assessee is entitled to interest till the date the amount is refunded to him and for this proposition he has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in CIT vs. M. L. Sanghi (1988) 170 ITR 670 (Raj). Shri Bapna, learned counsel for the Department, has not disputed that as far as this Court is concerned the Division Bench had settled the law in the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner but he has contended that in various judgments of other High Courts a contrary view has been taken which supports the view taken by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order and he has relied at the time of arguments on some of those judgments delivered by the other High Courts. It is, however, not disputed that I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and even if a contrary view has been taken by other High Courts, I have to decide these writ petitions according to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, following the abovesaid judgment, I allow these writ petitions and, holding that the petitioner -assessee is entitled to interest on the amounts in question till the date of refund of the amount actually made to him, I direct the respondents to make the payment of the amount so found due to the petitioner without any delay with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum.;