MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/634/2024HC DelhiDLHC01001103202414 February 2024Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the revenue's submission regarding the requirement to file Form No. 26B was unsustainable. The Court found that Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, clearly contemplates that refunds arising from orders passed in appeal should be released to the assessee without them having to make any specific claim. The Court noted the practical difficulties highlighted by the assessee, including the potential need to amend TDS returns. Consequently, the Court directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to resolve all issues and ensure that the refunds are duly released to the assessee within three weeks from the date of the order. The assessee was asked to render cooperation in this regard.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited, sought a refund of income tax for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, following an order dated September 29, 2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The revenue, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, initially submitted that the petitioner would need to apply for the refund in Form No. 26B as per Rule 31A(3A) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The petitioner contended that this would necessitate amending their Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) returns.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is required to file a specific claim in Form No. 26B for processing refunds arising from an ITAT order, as contended by the revenue, or if Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates the release of such refunds without a specific claim by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that filing Form 26B would impose an additional procedural burden, requiring them to amend their TDS returns for the relevant AYs. They implicitly relied on the principle that refunds due pursuant to appellate orders should be processed without undue procedural hurdles. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the refund processing is governed by Rule 31A(3A) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which necessitates the filing of Form No. 26B for the refund to be processed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 240

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 634/2024 & CM APPL. 8918/2024 (Document & Facts/Direction)

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal and Mr.

Sudip Lodh and Ms. Shalini,

Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.SC

with Mr. Parth Semwal, Ms.

Nupur Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

14.02.2024

1.

Bearing in mind the limited nature of the controversy which stood raised and which pertained to the claim for refund emanating from the common order dated 29 September 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], pursuant to which the petitioner became entitled for refund for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2016-17, AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, we had called upon Mr. Maratha to take appropriate instructions from the Assessing Officer [“AO”]. 2. Today, Mr Maratha has submitted that the petitioner would have to apply for the refund being processed in Form No.26B by virtue of the provisions made in Rule 31A(3A) of the Income Tax

Rules, 1962 [“Rules”]. 3. We find ourselves unable to sustain that submission bearing in mind the plain language of Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] and which when speaking of refunds pursuant to orders passed in appeal contemplates the “amounts being released to the assessee without him having to make any claim in that behalf”. 4. Mr. Sabharwal has also alluded to the practical aspects pertaining to applying in Form 26B and which according to him, would additionally require the assessee to amend his Tax Deducted at Source [“TDS”] Return for the concerned AYs. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the AO to invite the assessee to resolve all issues and to ensure that the refunds are duly released within a period of three weeks from today. The assessee may render cooperation in this respect. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of along with the pending application.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. FEBRUARY 14, 2024/p

More judgments on Section 240

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 240 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →