SRI RAGHUNATHJI & SONS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1) NEW DELHI

W.P.(C)/7725/2022HC DelhiDLHC01019225202219 May 20222 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass an Appeal Effect Order within eight weeks. The Court also directed the AO to forthwith vacate any attachment order, if in place. The primary finding was that the AO had not yet acted upon the ITAT's order to give effect to the reduced addition and consequently, the refund due to the petitioner had not been processed. The Court's reasoning was based on the petitioner's averments regarding the delay in refund issuance post the ITAT's favorable order and the statutory obligation to issue refunds promptly. The principle established is that tax authorities must act expeditiously to implement appellate orders and grant consequential refunds to taxpayers. The issue of interest on the delayed refund was not explicitly decided but is implicitly covered by the direction to pass an appeal effect order which would typically include interest calculations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Raghunathji & Sons, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction for the issuance of refund along with interest. The petitioner stated that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had, by an order dated August 2, 2019, directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to restrict an addition to Rs. 2 lakhs, a significant reduction from the Rs. 32,12,706/- initially added by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The Revenue had already recovered Rs. 14,34,839/- by attaching the petitioner's bank accounts prior to the ITAT order. Despite the ITAT's decision and subsequent applications and reminders filed by the petitioner from September 18, 2019, onwards, the refund had not been granted for over two years, contrary to statutory timelines.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer has complied with the directions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the restriction of addition and issuance of refund, and if not, what is the appropriate direction to ensure compliance? The Petitioner argued that the ITAT, by its order dated August 2, 2019, had directed a reduction in the addition to Rs. 2 lakhs. The Revenue had already recovered a substantial amount by attachment. The Petitioner contended that despite multiple applications and reminders, the refund was not issued for over two years, violating statutory provisions. The Petitioner sought a direction for the issuance of the refund with interest. The Revenue, represented by learned senior standing counsel, accepted notice, implying their engagement with the matter but no specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for refund were recorded in this order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7725/2022 SRI RAGHUNATHJI & SONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.K.R.Manjani with Mr.Tarun Aswani, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1) NEW DELHI.... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 19.05.2022 Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent to issue refund along with interest. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) vide its order dated 02nd August, 2019 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.2 lakhs as against Rs.32,12,706/- added by him and upheld by the CIT(A). He states that the Department before passing of the ITAT order had recovered Rs.14,34,839/- by attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the refund has not been granted to the Petitioner despite an application dated 18th September, 2019 and reminder letters dated 28th January, 2020, 18th February, 2021 and 16th This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 09:11:25

October, 2021. He states that refund has not been granted to the Petitioner for more than two years despite the statutory stipulation of issuing refund within time. Issue notice. Mr.Sanjay Kumar, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent/Revenue. Keeping in view the aforesaid averments, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the Appeal Effect Order within eight weeks. The Assessing Officer is also directed to vacate the attachment order forthwith, if any. List the matter for compliance on 05th September, 2022. The Assessing Officer shall join the proceedings by way of online video link on the next date of hearing. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 19, 2022 KA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2026 at 09:11:25

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →