Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Afflatus International – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks tax refund. (Para 1) |
| 2. recovery contested due to procedural violations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondents agree to refund excess amount. (Para 4) |
| 4. writ petition disposed of as satisfied. (Para 5) |
ORDER
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondents to refund the excess tax collected amounting to Rs.1,43,23,653/- for the Assessment Year 2020-21 and Rs.53,85,886/- for the Assessment Year 2018-19 forthwith.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondents have arbitrarily recovered 100% of the high-pitched disputed tax demand raised against the Petitioner for Assessment Year 2017-18 in an assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Act from the Refund(s) under Section 143(1) in subsequent years i.e. Rs.1,43,23,653/- for Assessment Year 2020-21 and Rs.53,85,886/- for Assessment Year 2018-19. He states that this was done despite an application seeking stay of recovery of demand being made by the Petitioner in the pending appeal before the CIT(A). He also states that the adjustment was initiated without adhering to the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice to the Pe
Tax refunds must not be adjusted without mandatory notice and adherence to procedural safeguards as stipulated in the Income Tax Act and CBDT guidelines.
Adjustment of refunds in excess of outstanding demand without adhering to CBDT office memorandum is impermissible.
Refund adjustments under tax laws require mandatory notice and adherence to stay orders; failure to comply results in violation of natural justice.
Tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines regarding tax recovery, including limiting recovery to 20% of disputed demands during appeal, failing which excess recovery is invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand upon payment/recovery of the standa....
Tax authorities must adhere to their own prescribed procedures regarding refund adjustments, enforcing taxpayers' rights against undue excess recoveries.
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
The court upheld that tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines on stay of demand, mandating refund of adjustments exceeding 20% of disputed tax during appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing Officer must adhere to the provisions of the Office Memorandums and grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on pa....
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
