The estimation of tax liability should be rational and founded on cogent grounds, taking into account the financial wherewithal of the assessee and consistent application of accounting policy.

ORDER

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 28.04.2020, passed by the respondents-revenue under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short =the Act'], concerning the assessment year (AY) 2018-2019.

2. This is a second round of litigation for the petitioner-assessee.

3. In the first round, the petitioner-assessee approached this Court with a similar grievance i.e., that its refunds for AYs 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 had been withheld for legal cause.

3.1. To agitate its grievance, the petitioner-assessee had filed three writ petitions qua each of the aforementioned assessment years i.e. W.P.(C) No. 10373/2019; W.P.(C) No. 10374/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 10375/2019.

3.2. These writ petitions were disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court, via a common judgment dated 18.02.2020. The Court, while disposing of the writ petitions, had issued the following operative directions:

" 19. In absence of any cogent reasons justifying withholding of the refund due to the petitioner under Section 143(1) for AY 2017-18, 2018-19, we find that the proposal as well as the approval granted by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax lacks consideration of the relevant and germane conditions. We, accordingly, set aside the order and direct the respondents to undertake the exercise afresh and pass an order under Section 241 A. We, therefore, grant six weeks' time to the respondents to consider the aspect whether the amount found due to be refunded, or any part thereof, is liable to be withheld under Section 241 A. While doing so, the Assessing Officer shall, firstly, with reasons, make a prima facie estimation of the probability that additions would be made in the Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings; secondly, he shall make an estimation of the guantum of additions/disallowances, if any, that may be made to the income returned, and the likely tax effect that such additions/disallowances may have, thirdly; he, should consider the financials, and financial standing of the petitioner with regard to its ability to meet and service any demand for the tax that may be raised as a result of the Scrutiny Proceedings; and, also take into consideration such other factors eg. past demands, any outstanding litigation and the past conduct of the assessee etc. All the aforesaid aspects should be examined to ascertain if the payment of the refund, or any, part thereof, are likely to have adverse affect on the Revenue. The order must reflect due application of mind of the Assessing Officer while making a proposal whether, or not, to withhold any part of the refund amount. Such a proposal should be examined by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with due application of mind on all the aforesaid aspects. The entire consideration, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to the withholding of the refund amount, or any part thereof, should be completed within six weeks from today, failing which, we direct the without awaiting any further orders, the respondents shall transmit the amount of Rs. 48,361,57,240/- (for A Y2017-18), Rs. 421,18,02,760/- (for AY 2016-17) and Rs. 349,41,45,020/- (for AY 2018-19) with interest to the petitioner. In the eventuality of the respondents recording any reasons for withholding a part of, or the entire amount due for refund to the petitioner under Section 143(1), the reasons thereof as approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax shall be provided to the petitioner forthwith. It shall be open to the petitioner to take remedial steps in respect of any orders for withholding of refund that may be passed. Needless to state that the reasons recorded for withholding of refund under section 241A. would only amount to a tentative view and would not come in the way of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act." [Emphasis is ours.]

3.3. In sum, via the judgment dated 18.02.2020, this Court granted six weeks to the respondents- revenue t