Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Progressive Infotech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.41211/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10618/2023
2. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the refund for Assessment Years (AYs) 2020-21 and 2021-22 has not been remitted.
2.1. According to the petitioner, for AY 2020-21, it is entitled to a refund of Rs.3,38,87,284/-. Likewise, for AY 2021-22, the petitioner claims refund of Rs.2,22,95,140/-.
3. Mr Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that he has obtained instructions in the matter.
3.1. According to Mr Chawla, a rectification order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] was passed on 08.02.2023, concerning AY 2020-21, whereby the refund amount of Rs.3,24,74,436/- has been determined.
3.2. Likewise, insofar as AY 2021-22 is concerned, refund amounting to Rs.2,22,95,137/- has been determined in favour of the petitioner, under Section 143(3) of the Act, via order dated 27.12.2022.
4. A copy of the communication, along with the computation sheet, has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner in court today.
5. Cou
Prompt addressing of rectification application for refund and timely remittance of refund amount if due.
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 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 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 mandated the Central Board of Direct Taxes to designate an officer responsible for processing the petitioner's refund request under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
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 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 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....
Tax refunds must comply with legal protocols, and any readjustment without notice lacks justification under tax law.
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
