ANUJ BANSAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/363/2023HC DelhiDLHC01000564202304 September 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the reduced refund amount of INR 8,50,890/- had been remitted to the petitioner, along with interest attributable to Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Given that the primary dispute revolved around the computation and release of interest on a delayed refund, and a substantial portion of the refund had been paid, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the concerned Assessing Officer to take appropriate steps to compute and release any further amount payable to the writ petitioner, as per the respondents' computation, within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the justification for the initial reduction in the refund amount, but rather focused on the subsequent remittance and computation of interest.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anuj Bansal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a reduction in his income tax refund. Initially, an Income Tax Computation Form dated 10.05.2023 showed a refund of Rs. 15,72,840/-. However, a subsequent form dated 19.05.2023 reduced this amount to Rs. 8,50,890/-. The High Court, in an order dated 22.05.2023, directed the revenue to explain the reduction and ordered the remittance of Rs. 8,50,890/- to the petitioner within ten days. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the amount of Rs. 8,50,890/- had been remitted, along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reduction in the refund amount from Rs. 15,72,840/- to Rs. 8,50,890/- was justified, and what was the reason for this reduction? (Question of fact and law, concerning the computation of refund). Assessee's contention: The assessee highlighted the discrepancy in the refund amount shown in two different Income Tax Computation Forms, indicating a significant reduction without apparent justification. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by learned senior standing counsel, was directed to explain the reduction in the refund amount. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's detailed arguments on the justification for the reduction, but it implies an explanation was sought and subsequently addressed by the remittance of the reduced amount and interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 363/2023 ANUJ BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel & Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Zehra Khan, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Mr. Anauntta Shankar and Mr. Vineet Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

04.09.2024 1. We had taken note of the principal disputes which arise in the writ petition in our order of 22 May 2023. That order reads as follows: “1. Mr Kapil Goel, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner, says that the amount which was shown as refundable, in the Income Tax Computation Form dated 10.05.2023, has been scaled down. 2. To be noted, in the Income Tax Computation Form dated 10.05.2023, the amount refundable to the petitioner has been shown as Rs.15,72,840/-. In the Income Tax Computation Form dated 19.05.2023, this amount has come down to Rs.8,50,890/-. 3. Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, will explain as to how the refund amount was reduced. However, in the meanwhile, Rs.8,50,890/- will be remitted to the petitioner, within the next ten 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 07/09/2024 at 14:33:52

days. 4. List the matter on 17.08.2023. 5. For the purpose of good order and record, the Registry will scan and upload the copies of the aforementioned Income Tax Computation Forms, so that the same remain embedded in the case file.” 2. However, and during the pendency of the present writ petition, we are informed that the amount of INR 8,50,890/- has already been remitted to the petitioner along with some component of the interest which is referable to Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. In view of the aforesaid, and since only an issue of computation and release of interest on delayed refund remains, we dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction to the concerned Assessing Officer to take appropriate steps in that regard, compute the amount which is payable to the writ petitioner according to the respondents and release the same within a period of six weeks from today. 4. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. SEPTEMBER 4, 2024/MR 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 07/09/2024 at 14:33:52

More judgments on Section 244A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →