GLOBAL CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERS PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR TARUN KATHURIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2849/2025HC DelhiDLHC01011580202516 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to process the petitioner's claim for refund along with applicable interest as expeditiously as possible, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that technical issues were being resolved and that the refund might be subject to adjustment against outstanding demands. The Court clarified that if adjustment against outstanding demand is required, it should be done in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly decide on the entitlement to interest but directed processing of the claim along with applicable interest. The primary relief granted was the direction to process the refund expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Global Consultants and Designers Pvt Ltd, filed its return for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017, which was later found defective and marked as such on 24.05.2018, with a notice under Section 139(9) issued. The petitioner could not comply within the prescribed time due to genuine hardship. An application under Section 119(2)(b) was filed with the CBDT for condonation of delay in filing the revised return, which was allowed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi, on 14.10.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revised return declaring a total income of ₹3,14,270/-, claiming a refund of ₹42,73,570/-. This refund has not been processed, despite repeated grievances raised by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order for processing the return of income filed on 16.11.2022 and granting the refund of ₹42,73,570/-, pursuant to the approval under Section 119(2)(b) and the approval dated 05.09.2024. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appropriate interest under the statute on the refund due. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that its return was processed pursuant to an order under Section 119(2)(b) and a subsequent approval, and it is entitled to the refund of ₹42,73,570/- along with applicable interest. The petitioner had genuine hardship in complying with the notice under Section 139(9) within the stipulated time. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue stated that the petitioner's grievance has been taken up and would be addressed shortly. The Assessing Officer was required to upload the revised return for CPC Bengaluru to process it. The return was uploaded with approvals, and CPC Bengaluru verified the details. However, there are technical portal issues being resolved. The Revenue also indicated that the refund claim might be subject to adjustment against outstanding demands.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119(2)(b),Section 139(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2849/2025 and CM APPL. 13474/2025 GLOBAL CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERS PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR TARUN KATHURIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Gaurav Jain and Mr Shudarshan Roy, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms Naincy Jain, Ms Madhavi Shukla and Mr Ujjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 16.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a) a writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for processing the return of income filed by the Petitioner on 16.11.2022 pursuant to order dt. 14.10.2022 passed by the Central Board of Direct taxes through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, New Delhi under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and grant the refund of Rs. 42,73,570/- due to the Petitioner pursuant to the approval dt. 05.09.2024 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 10, New Delhi; b) a writ of and/or order and/or direction to the Respondent No.1 and/or Respondent No. 2 to grant appropriate interest under the statute applicable on the refund due to the Petitioner;” 2. The petitioner had filed its return for assessment year [AY] 2017-18 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 21:18:15

on 04.11.2017. However, the said return was found defective and was, accordingly, so marked on 24.05.2018. A notice under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was also issued on the said date. It is the petitioner’s case that he could not comply with the said notice within the prescribed time on account of genuine hardship. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act with the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT] through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi requesting for condonation of delay in filing the return in the revised form. The said application was allowed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-4, New Delhi [CCIT] by an order dated 14.10.2022. The petitioner’s request for condoning the delay in filing the revised return was allowed. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a return declaring a total income of ₹3,14,270/-. In terms of the said return, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a refund of a sum of ₹42,73,570/-. However, the said refund has not been processed. 5. The petitioner had repeatedly raised his grievance with the Income Tax Authorities. However, the petitioner’s grievance has not been addressed as yet. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the petitioner’s grievance has been taken up by the concerned authorities and the same would be addressed shortly. She states that the Assessing Officer was required to upload the revised return for the Central Processing Unit, Bengaluru [CPC Bengaluru] to process the same. She states that the said 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 21:18:15

return was uploaded with the requisite approvals and the CPC Bengaluru has also verified the details. However, there are certain issues with the technical portal, which are being resolved. She also claims that the petitioner’s claim of refund may be subject to adjustment against outstanding demands. 7. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to process the petitioner’s claim for refund along with applicable interest as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of twelve weeks from date. In the event that the concerned authority is required to adjust the refund due against any other outstanding demand, the authority is not precluded from doing so subject to the same being done in accordance with law. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 16, 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 21:18:15

More judgments on Section 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →