Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2344 of 2019
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Additional Documents - Refund of Assessment Years - Disposal of Appeal - Stay against Recovery Proceedings - Expeditious Disposal of Appeal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought admission of additional documents and disposal of the writ petition with a stay against recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The petitioner also detailed the refunds due for various Assessment Years (AYs). The respondent/revenue stated the principal amount due to the petitioner and assured remittance of the refund along with interest within six weeks. The petitioner agreed to deposit 20% of the amount upon receipt and requested expeditious disposal of the appeal pending with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court had previously issued directions for disposal of the appeal, which had not been complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The Court ordered the disposal of the appeal within the next three months, based on the previous directions issued and the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the application and the writ petition were disposed of, and the writ petition was closed, with a listing for compliance of the directions on a future date. The concerned officer was directed to remain physically present in court if the amount due was not refunded.
Issues: Admission of additional documents, disposal of writ petition, stay against recovery proceedings, expeditious disposal of appeal, compliance with previous directions, and refund of the amount due.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal and compliance with previous directions, leading to the disposal of the application and the writ petition. The Court also ensured a future listing for compliance with the directions and directed the concerned officer to remain present if the amount due was not refunded.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of, and the writ petition was closed, with a future listing for compliance of the directions. The concerned officer was directed to remain physically present in court if the amount due was not refunded.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 42018/2021
1. The substantive prayers made in the application are the following:
"a. Admit the additional documents and dispose of the Writ Petition whilst getting stay against recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority;
b. Direct the First Appellate Authority to dispose-off the appeal of the Petitioner expeditiously."
2. In the body of the application i.e., in paragraph 4, the petitioner has given details of refunds for various Assessment Years (AYs) which are due to it.
3. The details in paragraph 4 suggest that refunds for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 that are due to the petitioner, inclusive of interest, was an amount pegged at Rs.9,68,22,740/-.
4. Mr Prashant Meharchandani, who appears on behalf of respondent/revenue, says that, as per his instructions, the principal amount due to the petitioner towards refund for the aforementioned period is approximately Rs.4.85 crores. It is Mr Mehachandani's statement that to the aforesaid amount, the interest would have to be added.
5. Furthermore, Mr Meharchandni says that the refund along with the interest will be remitted to the petitioner within six (6) weeks from today.
5.1. The statement of Mr Meharchandni is taken on record.
6. Mr Deepak Chopra, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the applicant/petitioner, says that if the amount indicated above by Mr Meharchandni along with up-to-date interest is remitted to the petitioner, the petitioner will deposit 20% of the said amount within ten (10) days of the receipt of the money with the respondent/revenue.
7. Mr Chopra further submits that the appeal pending with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] should be disposed of at the earliest, qua which directions have already been issued by the Court.
7.1. The record shows that this Court had issued a direction for disposal of the appeal as far as back on 24.11.2022. However, the appeal has not been disposed of, as yet.
8. Having regard to the fact that the directions were issued on 24.11.2022, when six (6) months were granted, we are of the opinion that the appeal should be disposed of within the next three (3) months.
8.1. It is ordered accordingly.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid, counsels for the parties say that the application, as well as the writ petition, can be disposed of.
9.1. It is ordered accordingly.
10. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
W.P.(C) 2344/2019
11. In view of the order passed in CM No. 42018/2021, the writ petition is closed.
12. The Registry will, however, list the writ petition for compliance of the directions issued hereinabove on 03.11.2023.
13. In case the amount due is not refunded, the concerned officer will remain physically present in the court on the next date of hearing.
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.
Prompt addressing of rectification application for refund and timely remittance of refund amount if due.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
Interest on refunds is warranted from the date of valid application in cases where the authority does not contest the claim, reinforcing the principle of compensation for delayed access to owed funds....
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 obligation of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order in response to the petitioner's communication regarding the reconciliation of refund figures.
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 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 principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
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
