ADITYA KRISHNAN THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR SANJAY SHARMA vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOM

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6378/2025HC DelhiDLHC01029677202514 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the Revenue to process the refund due to the petitioner's deceased wife as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had established his claim as the legal heir and that the Revenue had acknowledged his PAN. The Revenue's submission that the refund had been disbursed twice and that delays might be due to technical glitches did not preclude the Court from directing the expeditious processing of the refund. If the refund could not be processed for any reason, the concerned authority was directed to communicate the reasons to the petitioner within the stipulated period. The principle established is that the High Court can direct the expeditious processing of refunds when there is a clear entitlement and potential for undue delay, even if some procedural issues are cited by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aditya Krishnan, acting through his Power of Attorney, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another) to refund an excess income tax of Rs. 2,92,23,980/- along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This refund was due to his deceased wife, and the petitioner claimed to be her legal heir, with his PAN number accepted by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel noted that the refund had already been disbursed twice and that the delay, if any, might be due to technical glitches, as the deceased wife's return was filed on 31.12.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess income tax of Rs. 2,92,23,980/- along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the legal heir of his deceased wife? (Question of law and fact, concerning refund processing and entitlement). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is the legal heir of his deceased wife and that the Revenue has acknowledged this fact and accepted his PAN. He sought the refund of excess tax collected from his deceased wife. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel stated that the refund had already been disbursed twice to the petitioner and that the delay, if any, might be attributable to technical glitches. They also noted that the deceased wife's return was filed on 31.12.2024, implying the refund was not unduly delayed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6378/2025 & CM APPL. 29127/2025

ADITYA KRISHNAN THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MR SANJAY SHARMA

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Juvas Rawal and Mr. Yeshi Rinchhen, Advocates.

versus PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC; Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC; Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate for IT Department.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

14.05.2025 1. Issue notice. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a. issue a writ, order or direction of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to refund excess Income Tax of Rs.2,92,23,980/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Two Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) along with Interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 collected and acknowledged/admitted by the Respondent Department, in the account of the Petitioner, mentioned above in Ground D;” 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 19:10:44

3.

The petitioner seeks a refund of excess income tax, which was due to his deceased wife, as her legal heir. The petitioner states that he has been accepted as the legal heir, and his PAN number has also been accepted by the Revenue. 4. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue points out that the refund has been disbursed twice to the petitioner already and, therefore, there should be no impediment in processing the refund claimed by the petitioner. He also points out that the petitioner had filed his deceased wife’s return on 31.12.2024 as her legal representative and, therefore, the refund is not unduly delayed. He submits that the delay, if any, may be on account of certain technical glitches. 5. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to allow the present petition and direct the Revenue to process the refund due to the petitioner’s deceased wife as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date. In the event the said refund cannot be processed for any reason, the concerned authority shall communicate the reasons to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 14, 2025/sms

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 19:10:44

More judgments on Section 244A

All 1,186 judgments and leading authorities on Section 244A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →