Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
B. R. Arora And Associates Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dcit, Circle - 4(2), Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
2. Given the directions that we propose to issue, Mr Kumar says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court.
2.1. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
3. Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the petitioner has two grievances.
3.1. First, that refund for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 pursuant to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] dated 23.12.2020 has been partially remitted. It is stated that the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs.58,06,170/- along with statutory interest, whereas the amount refunded was only Rs.32,12,880/-.
3.2. Second, the amount refundable for AY 2020-21, i.e., Rs.4,14,950/- has been wrongly adjusted towards a non-existent demand for AY 2010-11.
4. Thus, in effect, the petitioner claims refu
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.
Timely disposal of rectification applications and examination of the viability of reliefs sought.
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 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 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.
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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the court's direction to the CBDT to consider the petitioner's alternatives for addressing the inadvertent capture of self-assessment tax agains....
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
