CONTROL RISKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16395/2024HC DelhiDLHC01085703202408 September 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 took the submission of the respondent on record. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to process the refund in accordance with the rules and law. The Court further directed that the refund be paid within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issue of interest entitlement, but the direction to process the refund 'along with interest' as per the petitioner's prayer and the respondent's commitment implies that interest, if legally due, should be processed. The primary focus was on ensuring the timely processing and payment of the refund.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Control Risks India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari to direct the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, to release the due income tax refund along with interest for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner had filed refund applications on November 24, 2023, and August 30, 2024. The respondent filed a counter affidavit acknowledging the delay in processing these applications, attributing it to factors such as backlogs, technical issues, or administrative delays. The respondent cited the Supreme Court case of UCO Bank vs. CIT to argue that such delays do not automatically imply negligence. The respondent's counsel stated that the refund would be processed and paid within six weeks.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent is obligated to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari directing the release of the income tax refund (along with interest) for Assessment Year 2015-16, and to dispose of the refund applications dated 24.11.2023 and 30.08.2024. (Question of law and fact, concerning the petitioner's right to refund and the respondent's duty to process it). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction for the release of the refund and interest, and for the disposal of their refund applications. Revenue's Contention: The respondent acknowledged the delay in processing the applications, attributing it to administrative and technical reasons, and cited UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) to argue that delays do not automatically indicate negligence. The respondent assured that the refund would be processed within six weeks.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16395/2024 CONTROL RISKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Upvan Gupta, Advocate. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

08.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(a) issue a writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to release the due amount of income tax refund (alongwith interest) for the assessment year 2015-16 and issuing directions for disposal of refund applications dated 24.11.2023 and 30.08.2024 for the said assessment year; and (b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 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 11/09/2025 at 12:43:44

2.

In fact the petitioner is seeking an appropriate direction to the respondent to make refund along with the applicable interest as per law. The petition concerns the Assessment Year 2015-16 and the applications for the refund were filed by the petitioner on 24.11.2023 and 30.08.2024. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein in paragraph 9 the following has been stated : “9. The petitioner has raised concerns about the non-disposal of their applications dated 24.11.2023 and 30.08.2024, requesting the issue of the outstanding income-tax refund along with interest for the assessment year 2015-16. While this delay in response is acknowledged, it is essential to note that the failure to dispose of these applications within a short time frame does not automatically suggest negligence or mala fide actions on the part of the department. Delays can often occur in the processing of applications due to factors such as backlogs, technical issues, or administrative delays, and this is especially relevant when the department is already addressing a larger backlog of cases or dealing with technical glitches that affect the refund process. It is important to refer to the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT

(1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that the department's delays, even in processing returns or addressing follow-up applications, are not always indicative of negligence. The Court emphasized that the department is not automatically liable for immediate action or compensation unless the delay can be shown to be due to gross negligence or a lack of due process. In this case, the technical nature of the delay and the department's application for condonation suggest that the delay is not willful.” 3. Learned counsel for respondent/Revenue states that the refund shall be 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 11/09/2025 at 12:43:44

processed and paid within six weeks as an outer limit. 4. Taking the submission on record, the petition is disposed of directing the respondent to process the refund in accordance with rules and law and pay the same within six weeks as an outer limit. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 dd 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 11/09/2025 at 12:43:44

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →