JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chandni Bhatia, Sanyam Agarwal and Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has made the following prayers :-

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of similar nature quashing notice dated 05.12.2017 issued under section 22693) of the Act (Annexure No.1) issued by the Opposite Party No.3 directing Opposite Party No.4 to pay Rs. 3.50 crore from the bank account of the Petitioner held with Opposite Party No.4.

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order of similar nature commanding Opposite Party no.3 to allow credit of TDS deducted in favour of the Petitioner for the A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2015-16 as appearing in notice of demand dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure No.9) and to revise income tax demand raised against the Petitioner accordingly.

(c) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order of similar nature commanding Opposite Party No.3 to return the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 withdrawn illegally under order dated 05.12.2017 passed under section 226(3) of the Act (Annexure No.1).

(d) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order of similar nature commanding Opposite Party no.3 to pass necessary order on Application under section 154 of the Act dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure No.10 colly.)."

3. Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the tax deducted at source is refundable to the petitioner as the petitioner is a Cooperative Society exempt under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that several applications for the refund of the amount have been made, along with the relevant TDS certificates (Form 16A) filed with the Department. However, the Department is unwilling to issue the refund on the grounds that the TDS amount is not reflected in Form 26AS.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Court on Its Motion vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Writ Petition (CIVIL) No. 2659 of 2012, decided on 14.03.2013) and by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India and Another (Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 657 of 2013, decided on 06.05.2014) is clear and categorical on the point that, in the event the TDS amount is not reflected in Form 26AS, refund must still be provided if the petitioner is able to furnish the Form 16A certificates.

5. In Court on Its Motion (supra), the Delhi High Court after examining the issue in detail has held as follows :-

"The statutory powers given to the Assessing Officer are sufficient and should be resorted to and the assessee cannot be left to the mercy or the sweet will of the deductors. Therefore, we direct that when an assessee approaches the Assessing Officer with requisite details and particulars, the said Assessing Officer will verify whether or not the deductor has made payment of the TDS and if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. These details or the TDS certificate should be starting point for the Assessing Officer to2013:DHC:1392-DB W.P. (C) Nos. 2659/2012 & 5443/2012 Page 41 of 45 ascertain and verify the true and correct position. The Assessing Officer will be at liberty to get in touch with the TDS circle in case he requires clarification or confirmation. He is also at liberty to get in touch with deductor by issuing a notice and co