Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
MS Geodis India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax OSD - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5258 of 2021 and CM Appl. 16167 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court directs cbdt to nominate an officer (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. lack of clarity on refund processing officer (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner seeking tax refunds for specified years (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. application disposed of with directions (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Pursuant to the hearing held on 11.05.2021, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel for the respondents/revenue, has reverted with instructions.
2. Ms. Malhotra says that the difficulty with which she is confronted is, that there is no clarity, as to which officer is required to process the petitioner's request for refund.
3. Given this position, counsel for the parties say that the writ petition can be disposed of, with a direction to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to nominate an officer, who would process the petitioner's request for refund for the relevant assessment years, as referred to in the writ petition.
4. The prayer made in the writ petition is indicative of the fact that the petitioner is seeking refund for assessment years spanning between 2012-2013 and 2017-2018.
5. Besides this, the petitioner also seeks interest as provided under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
6. We may note that in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has set forth details of the amounts refundable to it, in respect of each of the aforesaid assessment years. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:
| AY 2012-13 | AY 2013-14 | AY 2014-15 | AY 2015-16 | AY 2016-17 | AY 2017-18 | |
| Original Returned Income | 72,692,429/- | 158,713,621/- | 52,862,768/- | 45,561,480/- | 3,03,08,070/- | 174,575,860/- |
| Add: APA adjustment | 8,629,998/- | 11,572,375/- | 15,745,424/- | 12,042,047/- | 14,894,206/- | 15,326,094/- |
| TOTAL INCOME | 81,322,427/- | 170,285,996/- | 68,608,192/- | 57,963,527/- | 45,202,270/- | 189,901,954/- |
| Tax Payable | 26,385,062/- | 55,249,293/- | 22,259,927/- | 18,606,267/- | 14,945,227/- | 65,721,271/- |
| Less: Mat Credit | (4,383,514)/- | (1,891,010)/- | - | - | - | - |
| Less: TDS/TCS | (68,607,584)/- | (78,270,274)/- | (93,018,292)/- | (97,506,162)/- | (101,525,248)/- | (81,774,796)/- |
| Refund | 46,606,037/- | 24,911,992/- | 70,758,365/- | 78,699,895/- | 86,580,021/- | 16,053,525/- |
7. Thus, as indicated hereinabove, and as suggested by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent no.4/CBDT to nominate an officer, to deal with the aforementioned request concerning processing of refunds qua the assessment years delineated above.
7.1. The concerned officer will have regard to the amounts quantified by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, which have been extracted hereinabove.
7.2. The nomination of an officer will be made by respondent no.4/CBDT within two weeks of receipt of the copy of this order.
7.3. The concerned officer will, as directed, process the petitioner's request for refund, within the next three weeks of his nomination.
8. Consequently, the pending application shall also stand disposed of.
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.
Tax authorities are required to rectify apparent errors and issue refunds promptly to taxpayers, ensuring administrative efficiency and avoiding undue financial burden.
The court's decision was based on the plea that the respondents have to give effect to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the concerned Assessment Years.
The court reaffirmed that income tax refunds must be issued as per binding ITAT orders, emphasizing the essentiality of compliance with directions for timely processing and rectification under Articl....
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....
Tax refunds must comply with legal protocols, and any readjustment without notice lacks justification under tax law.
Timely issuance of income tax refunds and interest is mandated, with the court ensuring compliance with statutory duties by the Revenue authorities.
Tax authorities must promptly process rectification applications to ensure timeliness and compliance with statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act.
The court mandated that the Assessing Officer must address pending rectification applications and ensure the proper issuance of refunds in accordance with the income 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
