HOVER AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13937/2025HC DelhiDLHC01066674202504 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions. The Court noted the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, who agreed to dispose of the petitions by taking the revenue's stand on record. The revenue, through its counsel, had presented written instructions from the Assessing Officer detailing the need for a comprehensive reconciliation exercise. This exercise was to verify outstanding lawful demands, correct erroneous demands, and decide on the release of refunds and interest, involving multiple assessment years, legacy demands, adjustments under Section 245, and pending rectification/stay applications. The Court directed that any refund to be made to the petitioner would be in accordance with the law. The petitioner had specifically requested that the refund should include interest, referencing a previous High Court decision. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the reconciliation and disposal of applications are to be completed within the requested timeframe.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hover Automotive India Private Limited, filed three writ petitions (W.P.(C) 13937/2025, 13950/2025, and 13959/2025) before the Delhi High Court challenging certain actions of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi. The core of the dispute involved legacy demands for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, against which refunds for other AYs were adjusted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had also filed rectification and stay applications for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, which were pending. The revenue sought an adjournment to reconcile records between jurisdictional authorities and the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) to determine lawful demands, correct erroneous demands, and decide on refund release.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Department can be granted a further period of 12 weeks to complete the reconciliation of records, dispose of pending rectification/stay applications, and determine the exact outstanding lawful demand, if any, for each year in relation to the petitioner's legacy demands and refund adjustments? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural timelines and obligations under the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed to dispose of the petitions based on the stand taken by the revenue. The petitioner further contended that any refund due should be accompanied by interest, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Mrs. Anjul v. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12 & Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, submitted that a comprehensive reconciliation is required between jurisdictional records and CPC systems to verify outstanding lawful demands, correct erroneous demands, and decide on refund and interest release. They requested a further period of 12 weeks to complete this exercise, emphasizing bona fide action and no intention to withhold lawful refunds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 13937/2025
W.P.(C) 13950/2025
W.P.(C) 13959/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~40 to 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13937/2025 + W.P.(C) 13950/2025 + W.P.(C) 13959/2025 HOVER AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Vishal Kalra, Mr Anil Kumar, Advocates. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv Aggarwal, Mr Parth Samwal, JSCs, Ms Nupur Sharma, Mr Gaurav Singh, Mr Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms Muskan Goel, Mr Himanshu Goel and Mr Nischay Purohit, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 04.12.2025 1. Though, an adjournment slip has been moved by Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned SSC for the Revenue, he states that he has received the written instructions through email today in the morning from the Assessing Officer (AO), which reads as under:- “Subject Re URGENT ATTEN: In the matter of Hover Automotive India Private Limited (PAN-ACCH0477M) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New… Kindly refer to the above. On a preliminary verification of the ITBA records and 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 06/12/2025 at 13:38:46

CPC data, appears that the Petition has in fact, been issued Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. It also emerges that the system continues to display certain legacy demands for AYs 2013-14, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 and that refunds for other assessment years, at various points in time, been adjusted u/s 245 against these demands. Further, rectification applications and stay application filed by the Petitioner for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are found to be pending disposal. In view of the above, the matter involves multiple assessment years, past rectification orders, Vivad se Vishwas Form Farm 5, several adjustments made by CPC u/s 245, and pending rectification stay applications. A comprehensive reconciliation is required between the jurisdictional records and CPC systems to (i) verify the exact outstanding lawful demand, if any, for each year. (it) correct any erroneous or non-existent demands still reflected on the portal and (iii) take a considered decision regarding release of refund and interest in accordance with the Act and CBDT instructions. This exercise is already being taken up but will reasonably require some further time, including coordination with CPC. You may kindly request Hon’ble Court to grant the Department a further period of 12 weeks to complete the reconciliation and dispose of pending rectification /stay applications. It may be submitted that the Department is acting bona fide, there is no intention to withhold any lawful refund, and that the short adjournment sought is only to ensure that the correct legal position and reconciled figures are placed before the Hon'ble Court so that the writ petition can be addressed in a fair and effective manner. (Mohit Gupta) ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi” 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 06/12/2025 at 13:38:46

2.

In view of the stand taken by the AO, as placed before us by Mr Maratha, Mr Vishal Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that these petitions be disposed of by taking the stand on record. 3. At this stage, Mr Kalra, states that the refund which shall be made in favour of the petitioner in these matters, should be with interest keeping in view the settled position of law including the decision of this Court in Mrs. Anjul v. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, & Others, Neutral Citation No.2022:DHC:3356-DB. 4. Noting the said submissions, the refund shall be made to the petitioner in this batch of petitions in accordance with law. 5. The petitions are disposed of in above terms. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 04, 2025 M 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 06/12/2025 at 13:38:46

More judgments on Section 245

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →