BIZZNET ONLINE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(2)

PDF · subscribers
WP/2715/2019HC BombayHCBM02017544201906 January 20254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated June 19, 2019, within three months. This process requires the respondents to verify the status of deductions made by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit any further material within two weeks. The respondents must hear the petitioner, consider all materials, and verify the deductions. If deductions are confirmed as per the TDS certificate, the refund of Rs. 2,89,775/- should be processed within one month of determination. If the refund is made within two months of determination, no interest will be payable, as per the petitioner's statement. However, if the refund is delayed beyond two months, interest will be payable as per law. The court explicitly stated that it had not examined the rival contentions as it involved factual issues, leaving all contentions open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 6,16,650/- along with interest. Subsequently, the petitioner confined their claim to Rs. 2,89,775/-, as reflected in a TDS certificate. This amount was claimed via a representation dated June 19, 2019, which remained undecided, leading to the present petition. The assessment order was made in 2008. The respondents filed an affidavit, but it was unclear regarding the status of the TDS certificate and verification of deductions. The petitioner agreed not to claim interest on the refund.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to verify the TDS deductions of Rs. 2,89,775/- as reflected in the TDS certificate and grant a refund to the petitioner, considering the delay in the representation? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that since a TDS certificate was on record, the respondents should verify the deductions made by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd and grant the refund. They also agreed not to claim interest on the refund. Revenue's contentions: The revenue pointed out that the assessment order was made in 2008, and the representation was filed much later, on June 19, 2019. The respondents' affidavit was not clear on the verification of records.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

M/s. Bizzinet Online Systems Pvt Ltd v Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, 10 (2) & Anr. 9-oswp-2715-2019-J(F).docx Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2715 OF 2019 M/s. Bizznet Online Systems Pvt Ltd 1st Floor Gulshan Villa, Oomer Park, Warden Road, Mumbai – 400 036. …Petitioner VERSUS

1.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 10(2) Mumbai, Aykar Bhavan, Churchgate – 2, Mumbai.

2.

The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Thane …Respondents __________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES- Mr Bharat Gandhi, i/b, Mr Swapnil Newaskar, for the Petitioner. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondents. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S.Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 06 January 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (

Per MS Sonak J)

:-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.01.07 15:11:23 +0530

M/s. Bizzinet Online Systems Pvt Ltd v Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, 10 (2) & Anr. 9-oswp-2715-2019-J(F).docx

3.

By amending the Writ Petition, the petitioner prayed for a refund of Rs. 6,16,650/—along with interest applicable under Section 244A of the Income Tax, 1961. However, at a later stage, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, based on instructions from the Petitioner, confined the relief to a refund of Rs. 2,89,775/—, as reflected in the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book.

4.

Accordingly, by our order dated 4 October 2024, we recorded the statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and adjourned the matter at the request of Mr Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, to obtain instructions on whether the Petitioner’s claim could be allowed after examining the department documents.

5.

The Respondents have now filed an affidavit in this Court. However, the affidavit is not quite clear on the status of the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book. The affidavit does not speak about verification of the records, including finding out whether this amount of Rs. 2,89,775/- was indeed deducted by Percept Picture Company Pvt Ltd.

6.

The record shows that the Petitioner, through his Advocate, had addressed a representation dated 19 June 2019 seeking a refund of Rs. 2,89,775/- along with interest. Because this representation was not decided, the Petitioner has instituted this Petition.

7.

Mr Sharma pointed out that the assessment order in this case was made in 2008, and the representation was filed only on 19 June 2019. M/s. Bizzinet Online Systems Pvt Ltd v Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, 10 (2) & Anr. 9-oswp-2715-2019-J(F).docx

8.

Mr Bharat Gandhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions submitted that the Petitioner will not claim any interest on the refund. He, however, submits that since the TDS certificate has been placed on record, the Respondents should at least verify the position regarding deductions and grant a refund to the Petitioner.

9.

In the peculiar facts of this case, we think that the Respondent must dispose of the Petitioner’s representation dated 19 June 2019 within three months from today. For this, the Respondents must verify the status of deductions, if any, carried out by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd. If the Petitioner has any further material regarding the deductions, the Petitioner is granted liberty to place the same before the concerned Respondent within two weeks from today. The concerned Respondent must hear the Petitioner, consider the material placed by the Petitioner on record, verify the status of deductions, if any, made by Percept Pictures Company Pvt Ltd and the other material available with the department and dispose of the Petitioner’s representation, dated 19 June 2019. 10. Suppose the concerned Respondent is satisfied that deductions were indeed made as reflected in the TDS certificate on page 16 of the paper book. In that case, this amount should be refunded to the Petitioner within a month from such determination. If the refund is made within two months from such determination, there will be no question of paying interest to the Petitioner, given the Petitioner’s statement recorded by us. However, if there is a delay beyond two months, the Respondents will be liable to pay interest as per the law. M/s. Bizzinet Online Systems Pvt Ltd v Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, 10 (2) & Anr. 9-oswp-2715-2019-J(F).docx

11.

At this stage, we clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions because such an examination would involve determining factual issues. Accordingly, all parties’ contentions are left open.

12.

This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →