HOVER AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the submissions made by both parties. The revenue, through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, informed the Court that a comprehensive reconciliation exercise was underway to verify outstanding lawful demands, correct erroneous demands, and decide on the release of refunds and interest. The revenue sought a further period of 12 weeks to complete this exercise and dispose of pending rectification/stay applications. The petitioner agreed to have the petitions disposed of by taking the revenue's stand on record. The Court directed that any refund to be made to the petitioner would be in accordance with law. The petitioner's specific request for interest on the refund was noted, and the Court ordered that the refund shall be made in accordance with law, implying that the issue of interest would be considered as per legal provisions.
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. The petitions challenged actions by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, and others. The core issue 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. Rectification and stay applications for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were pending. The petitioner sought a comprehensive reconciliation of records and disposal of pending applications.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Department is required to reconcile its records and address pending rectification/stay applications concerning legacy demands and refund adjustments for multiple assessment years (QoL)? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on refunds that are eventually released, considering the delay in their issuance (QoL)? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that there was a need for comprehensive reconciliation between jurisdictional records and CPC systems to verify outstanding lawful demands, correct erroneous demands, and decide on the release of refunds and interest. They also 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 Contentions: The revenue, through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, acknowledged that Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been issued. They admitted to legacy demands for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, and that refunds for other AYs had been adjusted against these. The revenue requested a further period of 12 weeks to complete the reconciliation, dispose of pending applications, and ensure the correct legal position and reconciled figures were placed before the Court, stating they were acting bona fide.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
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 13:38:42
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 13:38:42
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 13:38:42
More judgments on Section 245
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Cavendish Bio Pharma, Haridwar vs ITO, Corp Ward 1(3), ChennaiITA 2086/CHNY/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Cavendish Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Uttarakhand vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(3), ChennaiITA 1970/CHNY/2026[2009-10]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2009-10
- Cavendish Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Uttarakhand vs ITO, Corp. Ward-1(3), ChennaiITA 1880/CHNY/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
- M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxWMAP/217/202328 Jul 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ashok Panda, Dhenkanal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax , CT And GST Circle, DhenkanalOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026