CORE DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5497/2024HC DelhiDLHC01020919202413 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the statement made by the respondents' counsel. The court recorded and accepted the submission that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) would make all endeavors to attend to the pending refund prayers and dispose of them with due expedition, preferably within a period of eight weeks. The court further directed that the jurisdictional AO, while quantifying the refundable amount, shall also consider any statutory interest that may be payable. The court did not decide on the merits of the refund claim itself but relied on the undertaking given by the revenue for expeditious processing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Core Diagnostics Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Income Tax Department to pay income tax refunds for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 amounting to Rs. 4,53,20,198/- and for AY 2023-24 amounting to Rs. 3,68,54,725/-. The petitioner's principal grievance was the failure of the respondents to process these refunds. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, did not dispute the refund claims but attributed the delay to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) not having the functionality to dispose of Section 154 applications at the relevant time. The respondents assured the court that the AO is now empowered to deal with rectification applications and would endeavor to dispose of the pending refund prayers with expedition, preferably within eight weeks.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have failed to process the income tax refunds due to the petitioner for AY 2022-23 and AY 2023-24, and if so, what is the appropriate relief? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that refunds amounting to Rs. 4,53,20,198/- for AY 2022-23 and Rs. 3,68,54,725/- for AY 2023-24 were due and had not been processed, seeking a direction for payment along with interest. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute the refund claims but stated that the delay was caused by the jurisdictional AO lacking the functionality to dispose of Section 154 applications. They submitted that the AO is now empowered and would process the refunds expeditiously.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5497/2024

CORE DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit Goel, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Ms. Easha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV

O R D E R %

13.05.2024 CM APPL.28463/2024 (6 Days Delay in C.A.) Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay of 06 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.

The application shall stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5497/2024 1. This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- “a) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing, commanding and requiring the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner income tax refund amounting to Rs. 4,53,20,198/- for the Assessment Year 2022-23 after accounting for TDS credit of Rs. 4,53,20,198/- shown in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and income tax refund amounting to Rs. 3,68,54,725/- for the Assessment Year 2023-24 after accounting for TDS/TCS credit of Rs. 3,68,54,725/- shown in intimation u/s 143 (1) of the Act, along with interest; b) pass/grant such order/relief and further orders/reliefs in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The principal grievance is with respect to the respondents 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 18/05/2024 at 11:41:11

having failed to process the refunds which were due to the petitioner for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2022-2023 and AY 2023-24. 3. From the counter affidavit which has been tendered in these proceedings, we note that the respondents do not principally dispute the claim for refund. However, it was submitted that since at the relevant point in time, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“AO”] had not been accorded the functionality to dispose of Section 154 applications under Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], it is the aforesaid factor alone which has led to a delay in attending to the application for refund. 4. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel, on instructions, states that now that the jurisdictional AO stands duly empowered to deal with the rectification applications, it would make all endeavour to attend to the pending refund prayers and dispose them of with due expedition and preferably within a period of eight weeks. The statement so made is recorded and accepted. 5. We, consequently, dispose of the writ petition in light of the statement noticed above. We, additionally, provide that the jurisdictional AO while quantifying the amount refundable shall also bear in mind the statutory interest, if any, which may be payable.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 13, 2024/neha

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 18/05/2024 at 11:41:11

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →