$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10^th February, 2026.

+ ITA 26/2026 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms.

Naincy Jain, JSC.

versus HCL INFOTECH PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Deepesh Jain, Advocates.

J U D G M E N T

DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral CM APPL. 3575/2026 (Delay in Re-filing)

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking condonation of 690 days delay in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

CM APPL. 3574/2026 (Exemption)

4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

5. The application stands disposed of.

ITA 26/2026

6. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “B”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the appeal that was filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.06.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „CIT(A)‟).

7. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent had initially filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 129,36,64,391/- and claimed refund of Rs. 15,38,86,689/-.

8. During the period interregnum, the respondent had submitted an application for a composite scheme of arrangement between it, its subsidiary companies, holding company which came to be approved under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide order dated 30.10.2013 passed by this Court. Accordingly system integration undertaking came to be merged with the respondent company w.e.f. 01.11.2013 with the appointed date, being

01.01.2013.

9. Consequent to the merger and the restructuring which had taken place, the respondent filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2016 and declared a loss of Rs. 130,25,67,160/- and claimed additional TDS credit/refund of Rs.

10,24,74,419/- making the total refund of the TDS to Rs. 25,63,61,108/-.

10. It is the respondent's assertion that due to some technical glitch, though an acknowledgement of filing the revised return was issued but no TDS claim could be reflected when it filed/uploaded the return. Hence, without any delay, it filed a complaint before the Centralised Processing Centre (hereinafter referred to as „the CPC‟) on 04.04.2016 flagging that due to some technical glitch, TDS credit was not reflected in its return of income, though it was duly shown in the XML file which was uploaded.

11. Vide letter dated 06.04.2016, the respondent informed the Assessing Officer as well about the said technical glitch and the factum of having filed complaint before the CPC. Along with the letter aforesaid, the respondent furnished a copy of the acknowledgement of the revised return for assessment year 2014-15; copy of computation of revised return of income; party-wise list of TDS claimed and screenshot of the complaint lodged with the CPC.

12. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟). Though he had taken note of the factum of restructuring and filing of the revised return and made certain adjustments to the income/loss claimed by the respondent-assessee, but no amount was refunded in relation to the TDS claim made by the respondent.

13. On 25.01.2018, the respondent filed an application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961, seeking rectification of the assessment order and claiming refund of the tax which has been deducted from the payments made to it.

14. The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 26.04.2018, pursuant to rectification application so filed by the petitioner and granted a refund of the entire tax deducted from its source. He, however, did not grant interest under Section 244A of the Act of 1961 by