MOL CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR OF GRACEMAC CORPORATION, USA) vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

$~S-13 & 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14218/2022 & CM APPL.43434/2022 MOL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Mr.Nageswar Rao, Advocate with Mr.Akshay Uppal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel and Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. + W.P.(C) 14239/2022 & CM APPL.43497/2022 MOL CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR OF GRACEMAC CORPORATION, USA) ..... Petitioner Mr.Nageswar Rao, Advocate with with Mr.Akshay Uppal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel and Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R % 07.10.2022 Present writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to pass appeal effect orders giving effect to the order dated 16th November, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5233/Del/2010, ITA No.945/Del/2012 and ITA No.947/Del/2012 (subsequently affirmed by this Court in ITA No.34/2022, ITA No.47/2022 and ITA No.48/2022 respectively). Petitioner also seeks release of refund amount along with interest in the Petitioner’s bank account. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) clearly provides that an order giving effect to an order passed by ITAT under Section 254 of the Act is to be passed by the Assessing Officer within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. He further states that Section 240 of the Act mandates refund of amount resulting from an order passed in appeal without any claim from taxpayer. He states that despite multiple follow-ups through various submissions, emails and meetings, Respondents has continued to retain the refund of Rs.2,15,49,73,953/- and Rs.72,55,47,289/- (to be increased by interest under Section 244A of the Act up to the date of actual credit of refund) legally due to the Petitioner in relation to assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively without assigning any cogent reason whatsoever, resulting in grave injustice to the Petitioner.

In support of his submission, he relies on the Taxpayer’s Charter announced on 13th August, 2020 and judgments of this Court in Nokia Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors: W.P.(C) 14070/2020; Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors.: W.P.(C) 15030/2021; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc vs. DCIT & Ors.: W.P.(C) 2146 & 21583/2022. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, accepts notice. Keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the present writ petitions, the same along with applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appeal effect orders as well as release the refund along with interest in the petitioner’s bank account within eight weeks. List the matters for compliance on 13th December, 2022. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 7, 2022 TS