ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13994/2022HC DelhiDLHC01037087202228 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that since the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2013-14 had not been assailed in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it had attained finality. The Court found that the inaction of the respondents in granting the refund was in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect order of the ITAT's order within twelve weeks of receiving the court's order. The Assessing Officer was also directed to grant the consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the petitioner along with applicable interest in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions for the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another) to pass an appeal effect order and grant consequential refund for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner stated that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had, by an order dated 29th November 2019, deleted additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer concerning transfer pricing on corporate charges (Rs. 13,54,90,701/-) and depreciation on goodwill (Rs. 158,73,13,884/-). The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of Rs. 23,18,71,243/- including interest. The petitioner further stated that the Revenue had not assailed the ITAT order in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, yet no refund was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to pass an appeal effect order and grant consequential refund for Assessment Year 2013-14, given that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order deleting additions has not been challenged by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The Tribunal's order dated 29th November 2019 for AY 2013-14 deleted significant additions, making the petitioner eligible for a refund of Rs. 23,18,71,243/- including interest. - The Revenue has not filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Tribunal's order. - Despite the finality of the Tribunal's order, the respondents have failed to issue the refund, contravening Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. Revenue's Contentions: - Learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue stated that he had no instructions in the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 240,Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP(C) 13994/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13994/2022 ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Saksham Singhal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 28th September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): C.M.No.42831/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13994/2022 1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to pass the appeal effect order of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and grant consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004057

WP(C) 13994/2022 Page 2 of 3 Petitioner along with applicable interest as per law. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Tribunal vide order dated 29th November, 2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14 deleted the additions/disallowances made by Respondent No.1 with respect to (i) transfer pricing addition on corporate charges of Rs.13,54,90,701/- and (ii) depreciation on goodwill of Rs.158,73,13,884/-, which includes additional depreciation of Rs.36,00,82,239/- which was not claimed in the tax return. He states that the Petitioner became entitled to total income tax refund(including interest) of Rs.23,18,71,243/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that as per the information available with the Petitioner, the order passed by the Tribunal has not been further assailed in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) before this Court by the Revenue. He states that despite this, no refund has been issued to the Petitioner in contravention of Section 240 and Section 244A of the Act. 4. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents-Revenue. He states that he has no instructions in the present case. 5. This Court is of the view that as the order of the Tribunal has not been assailed in appeal under Section 260A of the Act, it has attained finality and the inaction of the Respondents in granting the refund is in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. 6. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect order of the order passed by the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2013-14 within twelve weeks of receipt of this order as well as grant, if any, the consequential refund of tax This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004057

WP(C) 13994/2022 Page 3 of 3 paid/deposited by the Petitioner along with applicable interest in accordance with law. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 KA This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004057

More judgments on Section 240

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 240 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →