M/S CAIRN INDIA LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22821/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01088244201622 December 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the rectification order dated 16.12.2016 was inadequate as it merely narrated earlier facts without dealing with the petitioner's application for rectification. The Court noted that the officer appeared to consider herself bound by what was shown in the Department's AST, which could not be a ground for not complying with the Court's orders to consider the petitioner's application for rectification for the actual amount of TDS paid. The petition was disposed of by directing the officer to decide the petitioner's representations dated 02.02.2016 and 15.11.2016 by passing a reasoned order. This order was to take into consideration the amount of TDS actually paid. It was clarified that if rectification resulted in a refund, it should be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. The order was to be passed by 15th January, 2017.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Cairn India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another) actions. The petitioner contended that the Department had failed to grant credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) actually paid, amounting to approximately ₹245 crores, which was reflected on the Income Tax Department's website. The High Court, by an order dated 22.11.2016, had directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by passing a speaking order. The respondents subsequently tendered a rectification order dated 16.12.2016, which the petitioner argued merely narrated earlier facts without addressing the rectification application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have failed to grant credit for the actual amount of TDS paid by the petitioner, as reflected on the Income Tax Department's website, to the extent of approximately ₹245 crores, and whether this issue has been adequately addressed in the rectification order passed by the respondents? Assessee's contentions: The Department had not granted credit for the TDS actually paid, as reflected on the Income Tax Department's website, to the extent of about ₹245 crores. The rectification order dated 16.12.2016 did not deal with the petitioner's application for rectification and had not adverted to this aspect. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that Mr. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents, tendered the rectification order dated 16.12.2016. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the TDS credit claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.22821 OF 2016 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd DECEMBER, 2016

M/s. Cairn India Limited, DLF Atria Building, Gurgaon …. Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Gurgaon & another …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. J. VAZIFDAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. B. CHAUDHARI * * * * Present : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Rinku Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tajinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * S. J. VAZIFDAR, CJ. (ORAL) By order dated 07.11.2016 the Division Bench clarified that the pendency of this writ petition would not be a ground for the respondents not deciding the petitioner’s application for rectification. However, by our order dated 22.11.2016 we directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application for rectification under Section 154 and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order. Mr. Joshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has tendered the rectification order dated 16.12.2016. The same only narrates earlier facts, without dealing with the petitioner’s application for rectification. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Department had not granted it the credit for the TDS actually paid and as reflected Raj Kumar 2016.12.23 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.22821 OF 2016

-2- on the Income Tax Department’s website to the extent of about `245 crores. This aspect has not even been adverted to in the order.

It appears that the officer has considered herself bound by what has shown up in the Department’s AST. That cannot be a ground for not complying with our orders directing the officer to consider the petitioner’s application for rectification for the actual amount of the TDS paid.

The petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the officer to decide the petitioner’s representations dated 02.02.2016 and 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-8 & Annexure P-14 to the petition), by passing a reasoned order. It is clarified that the order shall take into consideration the amount of TDS actually paid. In the event of rectification resulting in a refund being due to the petitioner, the same shall be paid over to the petitioner in accordance with law. The order shall be passed by the officer concerned by 15th January, 2017.

The copy of this order be supplied to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.

(S. J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

22nd December, 2016 ‘raj’ (A. B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes No

Whether Reportable:

Yes No. Raj Kumar 2016.12.23 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →