GUNJAN KAWATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 33 (5) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16475/2024HC DelhiDLHC01086183202426 March 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court noted that the petitioner's grievance was two-fold: non-implementation of the ITAT order and non-release of refunds. Regarding the first grievance, the Court observed that the ITAT's order dated October 27, 2022, in ITA No. 5916/Del/2019, clearly set aside the penalty of ₹1,66,504 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16. The Revenue, in its counter-affidavit, confirmed that the portal no longer reflected this outstanding penalty, thereby addressing the petitioner's concern about its implementation. Concerning the refund of ₹1,57,027, the Revenue stated it was due and payable and would be disbursed according to law. The Court did not delve into the controversy surrounding another assessment order for AY 2015-16, as the reliefs sought were for the implementation of the ITAT order and the grant of refund, which were deemed addressed. The Court directed the concerned officer to process the refund claim and disburse the amount expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, while allowing the Revenue to adjust the refund against any other outstanding liability in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gunjan Kawatra, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking implementation of an ITAT order and release of refunds. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the ITAT's order in ITA No. 5916/Del/2019, dated October 27, 2022, which allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside a penalty of ₹1,66,504 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16. The petitioner contended that despite the ITAT's order, the penalty remained reflected as outstanding on the income tax portal, and refunds due to the petitioner were not released. The Revenue, in its counter-affidavit, confirmed that the portal no longer reflects the outstanding penalty. Regarding the refund of ₹1,57,027, the Revenue stated it was due and payable and would be disbursed according to law. The Revenue also mentioned another assessment order for AY 2015-16, which was not challenged by the assessee and had led to a previous writ petition being dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Department has implemented the order of the ITAT in ITA No. 5916/Del/2019, which deleted the penalty of ₹1,66,504 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16, and updated the tax portal accordingly? (Question of fact and law, concerning the implementation of a quasi-judicial order). 2. Whether the Income Tax Authorities have failed to release the refund due to the petitioner, amounting to ₹1,57,027, along with applicable interest? (Question of fact and law, concerning the disbursement of refunds). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the ITAT's order deleting the penalty had not been implemented, as the penalty continued to be reflected as outstanding on the portal. The petitioner also claimed that refunds were wrongly withheld. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue affirmed that the portal had been updated to reflect the deletion of the penalty. Regarding the refund, the Revenue stated that an amount of ₹1,57,027 was due and payable and would be disbursed in accordance with law. The Revenue also brought to the court's attention another assessment order for AY 2015-16, which was not challenged by the assessee and had led to a previous writ petition being dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16475/2024 and CM APPL. 69481/2024 GUNJAN KAWATRA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 33 (5) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Siddharth Sinha, senior standing counsel with Ms Anuja Pethia, Mr Srikant Singh and Ms Anu Priya Minz, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

26.03.

2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

“1. Issue orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Income Tax authorities to implement the orders of the ITAT in appeal No.5916/Del/2019 as well as delete the demand, of which the notice is not uploaded online since 2019. 2. Issue orders to direct the Income Tax Authorities to release the refund(s) wrongly withheld by them along with interest in favor of the Petitioner.

3.

Issue orders to duly compensate the Petitioner for having had to face mental torture and monetary loss at hands to the income Tax authorities.” 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 20:11:27

2.

As is apparent from the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner’s grievance is two-fold. First, that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA no.5916/Del/2019 has not been implemented and the demand, which was deleted continues to be reflected as outstanding. And second, that the Income Tax Authorities have failed to release the refund due to the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner, who appears in person, has referred to the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No.5916/Del/2019, whereby

the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed. A plain reading of the said order indicates that the petitioner had challenged an order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11 [CIT(A)] confirming the penalty of ₹1,66,504/-, which was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment year [AY] 2015-16. 4. The operative part of the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the learned ITAT in the aforementioned appeal reads as under:

“5. That being the factual position emerging on record, the assessee should not be visited with penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I delete the penalty imposed. The impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby set aside.”

5.

There is no ambiguity in the aforesaid order passed by the learned ITAT and the penalty imposed on the petitioner has been set aside. Thus, the portal was required to be updated to not reflect the penalty upheld by the learned CIT(A). 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 20:11:27

6.

The Revenue has filed the counter affidavit affirming that the portal now no longer reflects the outstanding penalty, which has since been deleted.

7.

Insofar as the petitioner’s claim for refund is concerned, the Revenue has filed a screenshot of the web portal. The learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn the attention of this court to the Row at C7.1 of the annexure attached to the order dated 30.12.2024, which reflects an amount of ₹1,57,027/-. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the said refund is due and payable to the petitioner and the same would be disbursed in accordance with law.

8.

The learned counsel for the Revenue further submits that there was another assessment order passed for the AY 2015-16, which has not been challenged by the Assessee and her, essential, grievance arises from the said order. He has drawn the attention of this court to the order dated 23.12.2019 in respect of AY 2015-16. 9. He also submits that the petitioner had filed a writ petition [being W.P.(C) 721/2020] impugning the said order, which was dismissed by an order dated 20.01.2020. 10. We do not consider it apposite to examine any controversy relating to the said assessment order in this petition, considering that the reliefs sought by the petitioner is for implementation of the order passed by the learned ITAT and for grant of refund. As noted above, the said grievances stand addressed. 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 20:11:27

11.

We, however, direct the concerned officer to process the petitioner’s claim for refund and disburse the amount due to the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from date. In the event, the Revenue seeks to adjust the refund amount against any other outstanding liability, this order will not preclude the Revenue from doing so. However, the concerned officer shall ensure that the same is done in accordance with law.

12.

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

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 26, 2025 RK

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 20:11:27

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →