Back
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
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.
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.
The obligation of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order in response to the petitioner's communication regarding the reconciliation of refund figures.
Prompt addressing of rectification application for refund and timely remittance of refund amount if due.
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....
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 ....
Timely disposal of rectification applications and examination of the viability of reliefs sought.
The court has the authority to direct the revenue to remit disputed refund amounts and grant liberty to file a rectification application for differences in refund amounts under the Income Tax Act, 19....
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.
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 held that the best course is to remit matters to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order rather than filing for rectification when significant time has passed.
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
