BECHTEL LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 2 NEW DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2817/2025HC DelhiDLHC01011522202527 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the concerned authority to process the petitioner's income tax return for AY 2013-14 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. The Court further stipulated that if the time period for processing the return had expired, the return must be accepted at its face value, and any refund due should be processed. The concerned authority was directed to take steps accordingly. The petition was disposed of in terms of these directions. The Court did not explicitly mention the specific time extensions or the exact expiry of the processing period, but the operative direction implies that the return should be processed regardless of potential time bar, or that the time bar, if any, should be overcome by accepting the return at face value.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bechtel Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) to process its Income Tax Return for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and issue any consequential refund along with statutory interest. The petitioner had been pursuing the department for processing its return since October 22, 2021. The Revenue acknowledged that the return had not been processed. The petitioner's counsel indicated that the time for processing the return had been extended multiple times. The High Court noted that the Revenue had not processed the return despite the petitioner's persistent follow-up.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Respondent No. 1 (ACIT) should be directed to dispose of the application dated 22.10.2021 for processing the Petitioner's Return of Income for Assessment Year 2013-14? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural obligation of the tax authority). 2. Whether Respondent No. 1 should be directed to issue the consequential refund along with statutory interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2013-14? (Question of law and fact, concerning the entitlement to refund and interest). Assessee's Contention: The assessee prayed for directions to the ACIT to process its AY 2013-14 return and issue the due refund with interest, having pursued the matter since October 2021. The assessee also indicated that the time for processing had been extended. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue fairly stated that the petitioner's return for AY 2013-14 had not been processed as yet.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2817/2025

BECHTEL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Deepak Chopra and Ms Priya Tandon, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 2 NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Ms Anauntta Shankar and Ms Yashika Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

27.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- “a. Direct Respondent No.1 to dispose of the application dated 22.10.2021 for processing the Return of Income of the Petitioner for Assessment Year 2013-14; b. Direct Respondent No. 1 to issue consequential refund along with statutory interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the Petitioner for Assessment Year 2013-14; and”

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the petitioner has been pursuing the department for processing its income tax returns for the Assessment Year [AY] 2013-14, however, the same has not 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 22:55:18

been processed as yet. 3. On a pointed query from the court, whether the processing of return is now barred by time, Mr Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that time for processing of the return has been extended on several occasions. 4. In the given circumstances, we direct the concerned authority to process the petitioner’s income tax return for AY 2013-14 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. If the time period for processing the return has expired, the return must be accepted at its face value and the refund if due, is required to be processed. The concerned authority is directed to take steps accordingly. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 27, 2025 M

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 22:55:18

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →