DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13993/2022HC DelhiDLHC01037086202228 September 2022Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, considering the limited relief sought in the writ petition, disposed of the matter. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Income Tax Officer) to decide the petitioner's application for refund dated November 14, 2021, within four weeks. The Court further directed that the refund, if any, along with applicable interest should be granted in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but focused on ensuring the petitioner's application was processed expeditiously. No specific finding was made on the exact entitlement to the refund amount, but the direction implies that if the application is found valid, the refund will be granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepak Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a refund of Rs. 1,62,885/- along with interest. The petitioner's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was allowed on March 6, 2020, and the demand against him was set aside. During the pendency of the ITAT appeal, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/-, and two bank accounts with balances of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 7,895/- were attached. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,62,885/- plus interest. He had filed multiple applications for the refund with the Income Tax Officer, but no action was taken by the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,62,885/- along with applicable interest, considering the ITAT order setting aside the demand against him and the amounts already deposited/attached. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the ITAT had allowed his appeal and set aside the demand. He had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- and had Rs. 12,895/- in attached bank accounts, totaling Rs. 1,62,895/-. Therefore, he was entitled to a refund of this amount with interest. He also stated that despite numerous applications, the revenue had not processed his refund. Revenue's Contention: The learned senior standing counsel for the revenue stated that he had no instructions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13993/2022 DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Dinesh Mohan Sinha with Mr.Rajeev, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR ..... Respondents 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 % 28.09.2022 Present writ petition has been filed seeking a refund of Rs.1,62,885/- along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the ITAT’) allowed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 06th March, 2020 and the demand made against the Petitioner was set aside. He states that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and two of his bank accounts having balances of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,895/- respectively were attached. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is thus entitled to the refund of Rs.1,62,885/- along with applicable interest. He states that the petitioner filed numerous applications before the Income Tax

Officer praying for refund. However, no action has been taken by the respondents-revenue. Issue notice. Mr.Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that he has no instruction. Keeping in view the limited relief sought in the present writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner’s application for refund dated 14th November, 2021 within four weeks and grant refund, if any, along with applicable interest in accordance with law. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 KA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →