INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14444/2022 INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney with Mr.Prashant Meharchandani , Mr.Nishank Vashistha andMr.Nikhil Agarwal, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 12.10.2022 C.M.No.44064/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.14444/2022 Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to pass an order giving effect to the order dated 26th July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and to grant refund of Rs. 4,88,36,334/- along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’]. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to the inaction of the respondent, the petitioner has been deprived of a substantial amount of

refund and a patently incorrect demand of Rs.4,15,33,507/- (excluding interest levied u/s 220 of the Act till date) which was deleted by the ITAT vide order dated 26th July, 2017 is still pending against the petitioner. He further states that pursuant to the remand by the ITAT, the TPO passed an order dated 16th March, 2018 deleting the entire TP adjustment of Rs.99 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 153(5) of the Act, an order passed under Section 254 of the Act has to be given effect to by the Assessing Officer within a period of three months from the end of the month in which the order is received by the Assessing Officer. He further submits that as per Section 153(3) read with Section 153(4) of the Act, the limitation for passing a fresh assessment order in pursuance to an order under Section 254 of the Act is twenty one months from the end of the month in which the order under Section 254 of the Act is received by the Assessing Officer. He states that qua the issue of addition of Rs.5,97,67,311/- on account of disallowance of depreciation (which was entirely deleted by ITAT Delhi itself), the statutory time limit to give effect to the ITAT order expired on 31st January, 2018 and qua the issue of transfer pricing addition of Rs.99 lakhs, the statutory time limit to give effect to order of the ITAT expired on 31st December, 2019 [three months and twenty one months from the end of October, 2017, taking the date of receipt of order by the respondent as the date on which the order was forwarded by the Petitioner]. He states that despite various letters addressed by the petitioner to the respondent-revenue requesting them to pass the appeal effect orders, the same has not been done till date.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of this Court in Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors, WP(C) 10964/2022 and Hyosung Corporation Vs. Union of India & Or., WP(C) 4737/2020. Issue notice. Mr.Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-revenue. He states that the Assessing Officer be granted time to pass consequential appeal effect order. In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-revenue to give effect to the ITAT order dated 26th July, 2017 and grant refund, if any, along with statutory interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Act within six weeks. List the matter for compliance on 02nd February, 2023. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 12, 2022 KA