KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15065/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01083887202510 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. The court noted the submissions made by the respondent regarding the rectification of the ITBA portal and the passing of the appeal effect order under Section 250, which resulted in a balance tax payable of Rs. Nil. It was also acknowledged that a refund of Rs. 54,40,689/- for AY 2013-14 was wrongly adjusted in AY 2007-08 and that necessary rectification had been carried out. The court directed that the necessary refund should be made expeditiously, within a period of two months. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise a demand for interest, if advised, in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was disposed of based on the rectifications and assurances provided by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kandi Friends Educational Trust, filed a writ petition challenging an adjustment order dated January 27, 2025. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, submitted that an outstanding demand of the assessee was wrongly shown on the ITBA portal. They stated that an appeal effect order under Section 250 had been passed on January 2, 2025, resulting in a balance tax payable of Rs. Nil. It was further found that a refund of Rs. 54,40,689/- for Assessment Year 2013-14 was wrongly adjusted in Assessment Year 2007-08. The respondents confirmed that necessary rectification had been carried out, and the refund would be released.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjustment order dated January 27, 2025, which the petitioner sought to quash, was erroneous, considering the subsequent rectification and confirmation of nil balance tax payable. The petitioner's primary contention, implied by the filing of the writ petition, was that the adjustment order was incorrect and caused undue hardship. The respondents' arguments, as presented in the court, were that the demand was wrongly reflected on the portal and that rectification measures had been taken. They highlighted that the appeal effect for AY 2013-14 had resulted in a nil balance tax payable and that a refund of Rs. 54,40,689/- was wrongly adjusted in AY 2007-08, which was now being rectified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 CWP-15065-2025 142 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-15065-2025 Decided on:10.07.2025

Kandi Friends Educational Trust

.... Petitioner

versus

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.

****

Lisa Gill, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing adjustment order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-8). 2.

Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of order dated 24.02.2025 wherein it is specifically stated as under: “2. On verification, it is found that the outstanding demand of the assessee is wrongly shown on ITBA portal. To rectify the same, a copy of appeal effect is being made to reduce the wrong demand being shown on the system. 3. Considering the assessee’s request dated 27.08.2024, appeal effect to the order under Section 250 has already been passed dated 02.01.2025 resulting the balance tax payable at Rs.Nil. 4. Further, on verification, it is found that the refund of Rs.54,40,689/- (for A.Y. 2013-14) was wrongly adjusted in A.Y. 2007-08.” SONIA BURA 2025.07.18 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 CWP-15065-2025

It is submitted that necessary rectification has been carried out. Amount of Rs.54,40,689/- is the refundable amount. An intimation in this regard has been sent to the petitioner and respondent No.2. Necessary refund will be released by respondent No.2. 4.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to raise the demand for interest in accordance with law, if so advised. It is expected that necessary refund shall be made expeditiously and definitely within a period of two months. 5.

Copy of this order be conveyed to respondent No.2.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

10.07.2025

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) sonia

JUDGE

Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.07.18 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →