ANJANA KIRITKUMAR BACHU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2) NEW DELHI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/949/2026HC DelhiDLHC01001902202609 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition and the pending application. The Court noted the submission by the respondent that the due amount of refund had been paid. However, in light of the petitioner's contention regarding the incorrect calculation of refund and interest, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file either a rectification application or a representation before the Assessing Officer. This application/representation should detail the petitioner's calculation of interest. The Assessing Officer is then directed to take this into consideration. If an additional amount is found to be payable, it must be paid to the petitioner within three months of receiving the rectification application/representation. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the correctness of the initial calculation but provided a procedural remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anjana Kiritkumar Bachu, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the calculation of refund and interest by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle INT Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi, for an unspecified assessment year. The petitioner claimed entitlement to an additional sum of Rs. 2,08,000/-. The respondent revenue, represented by senior standing counsel, submitted that the due amount of refund had already been paid to the petitioner. The High Court was hearing the writ petition and a pending application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the calculation of refund and interest made by the respondent revenue authorities is in accordance with law, as contended by the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning the computation of statutory benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the calculation of refund and interest by the respondents was incorrect and that she was entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 2,08,000/-, implying a dispute over the correct application of interest provisions. Revenue's contention: The respondent revenue submitted that the due amount of refund had already been paid to the petitioner, suggesting their calculation was complete and accurate.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 949/2026, CM APPL. 4624/2026

ANJANA KIRITKUMAR BACHU

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Kanha & Mr. Fenil Mehta, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2) NEW DELHI AND ANR

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

09.02.2026 1. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset submitted, that the due amount of refund has been paid to the petitioner. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the calculation of refund and interest made by the respondents is not in accordance with law and that the petitioner is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.2,08,000/-. 3. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Sinha, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, we dispose of the present writ petition along with pending application, granting liberty to the petitioner to file either rectification application or representation before the Assessing Officer giving out her calculation of the interest, which shall be taken into 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 11/02/2026 at 11:30:13

consideration by the Assessing Officer. In case, additional amount is found payable, the same shall be paid within a period of three months of receiving the rectification application/representation.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ck

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 11/02/2026 at 11:30:13

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →