IILM FOUNDATION ACADEMY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16231/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086806201806 July 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the Income Tax Officer (Exemption) at Faridabad to consider the petitioner's representations dated February 22, 2017, April 25, 2017, and June 19, 2017. The Officer is required to pass a reasoned order on these representations. If the petitioner is found to be entitled to any refund, the necessary action is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's order. The specific amount of refund and the basis for entitlement, as per the ITAT order, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court in this writ proceeding.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, IILM Foundation Academy, is a company registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It claims a refund of ₹43,61,147/- for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16. This refund claim is reportedly based on an order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was upheld by the High Court on September 16, 2016, in ITA No. 198 of 2011. The petitioner's grievance is that despite sending notices to the respondent-authorities, the refund has not been processed. The present writ petition was filed to seek a direction for the release of this refund.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of ₹43,61,147/- for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, based on the ITAT order upheld by the High Court. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that it is entitled to the refund as claimed, which is substantiated by a prior ITAT order that has been affirmed by the High Court. The delay in refund processing despite representations is the core of their grievance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. The court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with directions to the respondent-authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-16231-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16231-2018 Date of Decision: July 06, 2018 IILM Foundation Academy .....Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemption) and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr.Rohit Garg, Advocate for Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. ........ SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) The petitioner-Company is duly registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Its grievance in the instant writ petition is that for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16, the Company is entitled to refund of `43,61,147/- as per the details given in para 2 of the writ petition. The refund claim is stated to be based on the order passed by the Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal, which stands upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 16.09.2016 passed in ITA No.198 of 2011. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the amount is not being refunded despite notices sent by it to the respondent-authorities. [2] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in the instant writ petition but without expressing any views on merits of the case, the same is disposed of with a direction to the Income Tax Officer (Exemption) at Faridabad to dispose of the Meenu 2018.07.12 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-16231-2018 -2- representations dated 22.02.2017, 25.04.2017 and 19.06.2017, in which the petitioner has raised its claim for refund, by way of a reasoned order and in case the petitioner is found entitled to any refund, let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE July 06, 2018

( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE

1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2018.07.12 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →