MR. ANIL KUMAR GOEL vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI 10 AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7438/2025HC DelhiDLHC01034338202517 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It ordered that the amount due and payable to the petitioner, including interest, shall be released within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed that a breakup of the said amount shall be furnished to the petitioner within the same eight-week period. Furthermore, if the petitioner believes the payment is short, they are at liberty to make a representation to the Assessing Officer with justification for further refund. The Assessing Officer is mandated to consider this representation in accordance with the rules and communicate its decision to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the Assessing Officer's decision, they have the liberty to apply for the revival of the writ petition, presenting the order received from the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Goel, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to issue consequential refunds along with statutory and penal interest for assessment years 2007-08, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The petitioner claims a total refund of Rs. 9,98,236.80 as of the petition's filing date, with a detailed breakdown of principal amounts and calculated interest provided. The respondents, through their counsel, stated that they have calculated the amount payable, including interest, and will pay it within eight weeks. The High Court considered these submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue consequential refunds for assessment years 2007-08, 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19, along with statutory and penal interest, as claimed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that the respondents have failed to issue the refunds and statutory/penal interest due, despite the petitioner being entitled to a total refund of Rs. 9,98,236.80, as evidenced by a chart detailing principal amounts and calculated interest. The petitioner seeks directions for the issuance of these refunds and interest. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that they have worked out the amount payable to the petitioner, including interest, and undertake to pay it within eight weeks. They did not dispute the liability but indicated a timeframe for compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 7438/2025 Page 1 of 3 $~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 7438/2025 MR. ANIL KUMAR GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Himanshi Goel with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advs. along with petitioner. versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI 10 AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Mr. Parth Samwal, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) issuance of writ under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to issue the consequential refund in compliance of order dated 08/02/2017 passed by LD CIT (Appeals) for AY 2007-08 along with refunds adjusted for other years with interest and cost; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:22.09.2025 15:14:16 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 7438/2025 Page 2 of 3 appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to grant the statutory interest to the Petitioner under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to grant the penal interest to the Petitioner as applicable; d) Recompute the refund along with interest to be paid by the department; e) Award costs of litigation to the Petitioner and grant compensation for the legal cost, harassment, inconvenience, and undue hardship caused due to the inaction and failure of the Respondents.” 2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking refund of certain amounts along with interest for four different assessment years. It is a case that the same has not been done and the same is liable to be paid with applicable interest. Ms. Himanshi Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to page 39 of the paper-book to contend that the total refund the petitioner is entitled to as on the date of filing of the writ petition is Rs. 9,98,236.80. The chart at page 39 is reproduced as under:- Date of adjustme nt of refund Adjusted for AY Amount of refund (Rs.) Interest from Interest till Interest for No of Month Rate of interest Per Month Interest (Rs.} Total Refund (Rs.) 30/12/14 2007-08 469470 Jan-15 May- 25 124 0.50% 291071.4 760541.4 10/06/19 2015-16 22770 Jun-19 May- 25 71 0.50% 8083.35 30853.35 10/06/19 2017-18 76590 Jun-19 May- 25 71 0.50% 27189.45 103779.5 05/10/18 2018-19 73880 Oct-18 May- 25 79 0.50% 29182.6 103062.6 Total 642710 355526.8 998236.8 Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:22.09.2025 15:14:16 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 7438/2025 Page 3 of 3 3. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal have placed before us certain documents to contend that the respondents have worked out the amount payable to the petitioner and the amount including the interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. 4. If that be so, the amount due and payable to the petitioner shall be released within a period of eight weeks as an outer limit. The breakup of the said amount shall be furnished within the same time period. 5. If the petitioner is of the view that the payment of the amount is short, a representation shall be made to the Assessing Officer giving justification for further refund and the same shall be considered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the Rules and communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, liberty shall be with the petitioner to file an application for revival of this petition, along with the order received. 7. This petition is disposed of accordingly. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/sr Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:22.09.2025 15:14:16 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →