HATENDER KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6941/2025HC DelhiDLHC01032199202521 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondents to pass an appeal effect order, if not already filed, and process any refund due to the petitioner, along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, in accordance with the law. If an appeal effect order had already been passed, the concerned authority was directed to ensure its implementation and process the refund with interest until the date of disbursal. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to a refund if one was due, but lacked instructions on the status of the appeal effect order. The Court did not explicitly address the petitioner's prayer to restrain future adjustments, but the direction to process the refund implies that any such adjustments against a deleted/modified demand would be erroneous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hatender Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another) to give effect to an order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the CIT(A), which was confirmed by the ITAT on 13.08.2013. The petitioner's assessment for AY 2009-10 resulted in a demand of ₹8,02,950/-. The CIT(A) allowed the petitioner's appeal, deleting an addition of ₹19,96,985/-, making a refund due. The Revenue's appeal to the ITAT was dismissed. Despite this, the petitioner claims the refund has not been processed, and approximately ₹8,70,123/- has been recovered by adjusting future refunds from AY 2012-13 to 2024-25. The petitioner also sought to restrain future adjustments against the demand for AY 2009-10, which he claims stands modified/deleted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are liable to give effect to the CIT(A)'s order dated 24.05.2012, confirmed by the ITAT on 13.08.2013, and process the refund due to the petitioner for AY 2009-10? (Question of law and fact, concerning implementation of appellate orders and refund processing). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the CIT(A)'s order, confirmed by the ITAT, deleted the additions made in the assessment order, thus entitling him to a refund. He contended that despite these favorable orders, the refund has not been processed, and amounts have been illegally recovered by adjusting future refunds. He also raised concerns about the traceability of the CIT(A)'s order within the department. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's counsel did not dispute that if a refund was due, it should be processed. However, they stated they had no instructions on whether an appeal effect order had been passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6941/2025 & CM APPL. 31427/2025 HATENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dev Raj Sharma, Mr. Sathak Asthana, Mr. Ashoke Chakrabartty, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

21.05.

2025

1.

Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to give effect to the order dated 24.05.2012 of the CIT(A) (Copy of the appellate order dated 24.05.2012 is not traceable in the records of the Income Tax Department and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Copy of the RTI application dated 31.10.2023 and the order u/s 7(1) of RTI Act dated 25.04.2024 is annexed), which was confirmed by the ITAT vide order dated 13.08.2013, and to refund the amount illegally recovered pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2011; (b) Direct the Respondents to refund the amount of approximately Rs. 8,70,123/- (being the amount recovered by adjustment of refunds for A.Ys. 2012–13 to 2024–25 and otherwise), along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act; (C) Restrain the Respondents from adjusting any future refund of the Petitioner against the demand for assessment year 2009–10 which stands modified/deleted;”

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:37:46

3.

The petitioner claims that his assessment for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 was completed in terms of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act whereby certain additions were made. Consequent to the said additions, a demand of ₹8,02,950/- was raised as against a refund claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner appealed the said assessment order dated 29.12.2011 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV [CIT(A)]. The said appeal was allowed in terms of the order dated 24.05.2012 and the addition of ₹19,96,985/-, as made by the assessee, was deleted. Consequently, the refund claimed by the petitioner became due and payable.

4.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] being ITA No. 4124/Del/2012. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 23.08.2013. The petitioner claims that notwithstanding that the Revenue did not prevail before the ITAT, it has not refunded the amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has been raising his grievances on the Income Tax Portal but his issues have not been satisfactorily resolved. It is also contended by the petitioner that perhaps the copy of the order passed by the CIT(A) is not traceable with the department.

5.

The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that if the petitioner has succeeded before the CIT(A) and any refund is due as a consequence thereof, the same is required to be processed. He, however, states that he does not have any instructions as yet whether the appeal effect order has been passed.

6.

In view of the above, we consider it apposite to allow the present petition and direct the respondent to pass an appeal effect order, if not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:37:46

already filed, and process the refund due to the petitioner, if any, alongwith interest, in accordance with law. However, if the appeal effect order has already been passed, the concerned authority shall ensure that the same is duly implemented and the refund, if any, due to the petitioner is processed alongwith interest till the date of disbursal in accordance with law.

7.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 21, 2025/sms

Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:37:46

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →