Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
M/s Ctc Geotechnical Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Income Tax Cpc Bangalore & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7428 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Important Points
Subject
Taxation Law - Income Tax
Headnote
Income Tax Act - Refund Adjustment - The court directed the Assessing Officer to treat the petitioner's representation as a representation and pass a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief as the refund dues for Assessment Year 2022-23 were wrongly adjusted against illusory demand pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Officer to treat the petitioner's communication as a representation and pass a speaking order within eight weeks.
Issues: Refund adjustment, reconciliation of figures, Assessing Officer's obligation to pass a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order in response to the petitioner's communication regarding the reconciliation of refund figures.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to treat the petitioner's communication as a representation and pass a speaking order within eight weeks.
Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr Vipul Agarwal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Gibran Naudhad, Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.28876/2023
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 7428/2023
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Vipul Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, accepts notice.
3. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Agarwal says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court.
3.1. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
4. Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, says that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that the refund dues vis-a-vis Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 amounting to Rs.82,08,971/-, inclusive of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], has been wrongly adjusted against illusory demand pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
4.1. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to intimation issued to the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the Act. At serial no.45 of this document, the adjustment towards the demand is pegged at Rs.49,47,077/-. [See page 25 of the case paper].
4.2. To be noted, out of the said sum, Rs.47,10,751/-, according to the petitioner, is attributed to AY 2009-10.
5. The refund amount which is shown against serial no.44 of the very same document is Rs.82,08,971/-. Consequently, the net refundable amount, which is shown at serial no.46, was scaled down to Rs.32,61,893/-.
6. Ms Malhotra has cross-referenced the demand figure with the assessment order and the demand notice, which is found on pages 40 and 41 of the case file.
7. Ms Malhotra says that the petitioner has written several communications to the AO to reconcile the figure, and pass a speaking order with regard to the actual refund due for AY 2022-23.
8. Given these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the AO to treat the same as a representation, and pass a speaking order within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement.
9. List the matter for compliance on 26.09.2023.
