Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Infres Methodex Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
2. In view of the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Gupta says, that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and that he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the Court.
3. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. Counsel for the petitioner says, that the petitioner's principal grievance is, that the respondents/revenue, without following the regime set forth in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] proceeded to adjust the refund available to it amounting to Rs.1,72,02,960/- for Assessment Year 2021-22 & 2022-23 against demand raised for AY 2017-18.
5. We are informed, that the demand raised qua the petitioner for AY 2017-18 is Rs.2,52,59,189/-.
6. Furthermore, counsel for the petitioner says, that he has filed an appeal against the assessment order concerning demand with respondent no.
The court emphasized the importance of following the regime set forth in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and upheld the petitioner's right to seek an appropriate remedy if aggrieved by the d....
Prompt addressing of rectification application for refund and timely remittance of refund amount if due.
The obligation of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order in response to the petitioner's communication regarding the reconciliation of refund figures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer must comply with the stipulated percentage of the disputed demand as per the relevant provisions ....
The court applied the principle that the revenue cannot recover more than 20% of the outstanding tax demand and emphasized the timely disposal of the appeal.
The court ruled on the application of Articles 226 and 227 regarding interim tax relief, emphasizing that disputed tax demands require careful judicial consideration and timely hearings.
The court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. It also prov....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious disposal of appeals and compliance with court directions in matters related to refunds and recovery proceedings.
Procedural fairness and consideration of petitioner's response in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
