EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10647/2022HC DelhiDLHC01026355202222 September 2023Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to remit Rs. 1,21,07,102/- to the petitioner/assessee along with applicable interest within four weeks. This decision was based on the revenue's submission that the amount was recovered due to an outstanding demand which no longer survives. Regarding the remaining dispute concerning the difference between Rs. 4,11,870/- and Rs. 17,09,923/-, the petitioner's counsel stated that a rectification application would be filed before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file such an application within two weeks of receiving the order. The AO was directed to decide the rectification application within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms. The issue of the petitioner not being served with the Section 143(1) intimation was implicitly addressed by allowing the rectification application.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others) to issue refunds of Rs. 17,09,923/- and Rs. 1,21,07,102/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, along with interest. The revenue, represented by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, stated that the return for AY 2009-10 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining a refund of Rs. 4,11,870/-, which was remitted on April 6, 2011. The revenue contended that the claimed amount of Rs. 17,09,923/- was not tenable. Regarding the Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, the revenue stated it was recovered from the petitioner's bank account due to an outstanding demand for AY 2009-10, and since the demand notice no longer survives, this amount may be remitted back.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 17,09,923/- for AY 2009-10, considering the refund of Rs. 4,11,870/- already processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, recovered from the petitioner's bank account, should be remitted back to the petitioner along with interest, given that the demand notice for AY 2009-10 no longer survives. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that they were not served with the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act which pegged the refund at Rs. 4,11,870/-. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue stated that the refund of Rs. 4,11,870/- was processed and remitted, and the claim for Rs. 17,09,923/- was not tenable. Regarding the Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, the revenue acknowledged its recovery due to an outstanding demand and indicated it might be remitted back as the demand no longer survives.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Page 1 of 3

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 22.09.2023 +

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner Through: Mr Salil Kapoor with Mr Sumeet Lalchandani, Advs.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. The substantial prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 17,09,923/- and Rs. 1,21,07,102/- for AY 2009-10 along with up to date interest as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.

Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, has returned with instructions. According to his instructions, insofar as the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY 2009-10 is concerned, the income tax return filed for the said AY was

Page 2 of 3

processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] and Rs. 4,11,870/- was determined as refund due to the petitioner/assessee. 3. According to Mr Hossain, this amount was remitted to the petitioner on 06.04.2011. Having said that, Mr Hossain contends that Rs.17,09,923/- claimed by the petitioner is not tenable. 4. As regards the other amount, i.e., Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, Mr Hossain once again, based on instructions received, says that this amount was recovered from the petitioner’s bank account based on the demand outstanding qua AY 2009-10. 5. Mr Hossain states that since the demand notice no longer survives, the said amount may have to be remitted to the petitioner/assessee. 6. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, on the other hand, says that the petitioner/assessee was never served with the intimation, if any, under Section 143(1) of the Act, whereby refund was pegged at Rs. 4,11,870/- 7. Given the aforesaid position, in our view, a direction can be issued to the respondents/revenue to remit Rs. 1,21,07,102/- to the petitioner/assessee along with applicable interest within the next four (4) weeks. 7.1 It is ordered accordingly. 8. Insofar as the other aspect is concerned, as to the difference between Rs. 4,11,870/- and Rs. 17,09,923/-, Mr Kapoor says that he will file a rectification application before the Assessing Officer (AO). 8.1 Liberty in that behalf is granted. 9. In case the petitioner was to file a rectification application within two (2) weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order, the same will be decided by the

Page 3 of 3

AO within four (4) weeks thereafter. 10. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

SEPTEMBER 22, 2023/pmc

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →