PRAMILA LAMBA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07, NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 1 of 6 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7852/2022 PRAMILA LAMBA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar and Mr. Utsav Garg, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue along with Mr.Tushar Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr.Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 31.08.2022 CM APPL.32671/2022 1. The present writ petition was disposed of as satisfied on 31st May, 2022 recording the statement of the counsel for the respondent that the refund amount of Rs.6,44,960/- stands determined. However, the petitioner has now filed the present application under Section 151 CPC since the refund amount so determined has not been credited to her account. The petitioner has enclosed with the present application, the Form No. (5) issued by the respondent on 2nd June, 2022 determining the said refund. 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 2 of 6 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that on 7th October, 2013, a company being M/s S.A. Financial Services Private Ltd. through its Director had applied for dissolution under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 under the Fast Track Exit Scheme. The company was dissolved by an order dated 31st December, 2013 passed by the Registrar of Companies, which was published in Part-III Section 1 of Gazatte of India on 18th January, 2014. The petitioner herein was a share holder of the said company along with her husband. These were the only two share holders of the company. 3. It is stated that there was no tax due or any proceeding for determination of tax pending when the company applied for dissolution. However, subsequently, on 3rd March, 2015, notice for reassessment was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act of 1961’) to the company with respect to Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09, which culminated in an assessment order dated 30th March, 2016 and the respondent raised a demand of Rs.1,01,06,625/- on the said dissolved company. 4. The petitioner being one of the erstwhile directors of the company filed an appeal against the assessment order challenging the validity of the reopening of assessment and also the assessment order and the consequential demand raised by the AO. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] vide its order dated 14th January, 2019 set aside the assessment order by holding that the same was invalid and annulled the assessment proceedings including the assessment order. Consequent to the order dated 14th January, 2019, the respondent filed an appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking restoration of the name of the company. The respondent separately also filed an appeal against the order 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 3 of 6 passed by the CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). 6. It is noteworthy that during the pendency of the appeals before the NCLT and ITAT, the legislature enacted an Act titled as Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 ('the Act of 2020') in order to provide the resolution of disputed tax and matters connected therewith. Under the provisions of the said Act, all appeals filed and pending before any appellate forum as on 30th January, 2020 could be settled by paying a specified amount i.e. the amount of disputed tax in a non-search case or a sum equivalent to 125% of the disputed tax amount in a search case. The Act of 2020 also clarified that making a declaration under the Act shall not amount to conceding the tax position. 7. The petitioner herein as the erstwhile share holder of the company filed a declaration under the said Act of 2020 in Form (1) in respect of AY 2008-09 as well as the prescribed undertaking in Form (2). The designated authority on 28th December, 2020 issued a Certificate in Form (3) determining that a sum of Rs.25,79,840/- was payable upto 31st March, 2020. Subsequently, treating the case as a ‘search case’, the said Certificate was revised by the designated authority on 21st January, 2021 and the amount of tax payable to the company was enhanced to Rs.32,24,800/-. 8. The ITAT vide order dated 17th February, 2021 taking cognizance of the certificate issued u/s 5(1) of the Act of 2020 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue-Respondent. 9. The petitioner herein deposited the said amount of Rs.32,24,800/- with the designated authority from her personal bank account, vide Challan No. 27828 with ICICI Bank. The petitioner herein duly informed the designated authority about the said payment by filing Form No. (4). 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 4 of 6 10. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) vide its Circular No. 04/2021 modified the Circular 21/2020 and clarified the expression 'search case'. Since as per the said clarification the dissolved company's case was admittedly not a 'search case', the designated authority issued a fresh Form (3) on 9th June, 2021 and determined the demand at the initial amount of Rs.25,79,480/- 11. Due to this downward revision in tax demand, an amount of Rs. 6,44,960/- became refundable to the petitioner. However, the said amount was not refunded to the petitioner and therefore, she was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the refund of the said amount along with interest till date of such refund. 12. Pertinently, the petitioner in the writ specifically prayed that the refund should be issued in her personal name as it was the petitioner who has discharged the liability on behalf of the dissolved company in terms of Section 179 of the Act of 1961. 13. On 31st May, 2022, the respondent counsel stated that the designated authority i.e., Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-07, New Delhi has issued revised Form (3) under the Act of 2020 and that in accordance with the revised Form (3), the Petitioner shall be entitled to refund of Rs. 6,44,960/- subject to the Petitioner filing Form (4). Therefore, being satisfied with the statement of learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue, the present writ petition was disposed of as satisfied. 14. It has now come on record that the petitioner had filed the Form No. (4) on 1st June, 2022 and thereafter a fresh Form No. (5) dated 2nd June, 2022 has been issued by the designated authority determining a refund of Rs.6,44,960/- in favour of the petitioner. However, despite the issuance of the said Form No. (5) dated 2nd June, 2022, the petitioner herein has till date not received the refund. In 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 5 of 6 these circumstances, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present application seeking a direction to the respondent to release the refund amount. 15. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 23rd August, 2022 affirming that she along with her husband were the only share holders of the dissolved company and there is no other claimant for this amount. 16. Notice was issued in the application on 27th July 2022. The counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the Form No. (5) has been issued in the name of the dissolved company, the refund amount cannot be credited to the petitioner's account. 17. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 18. As noted above, the amount of Rs.32,24,800/- was deposited by the petitioner on 15th March, 2021 from her personal account, as the assessee company already stood dissolved and all these material facts were duly enlisted in the writ petition. The petitioner in support of the said averment, has placed on record the bank statement which duly shows the debit of the said amount from her personal account. 19. The affidavit of the petitioner’s husband Mr. Subhash Lamba dated 23rd August, 2022, the only other shareholder, has also been filed on record wherein he has affirmed that since the entire tax amount was deposited by the petitioner, he has no objection if the amount is refunded to her. 20. Therefore, while, it is correct that the Form No. (5) has been issued in the name of M/s S.A. Financial Services Private Limited, however, admittedly, the said company already stands dissolved and it does not have any bank account. It is a matter of record that the entire proceedings challenging the assessment order and thereafter under the Act 2020 have been undertaken by the petitioner. The petitioner has participated in these proceedings in her personal capacity in light 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30

W.P.(C) 7852/2022 Page 6 of 6 of section 179 of the Act of 1961 and the amount in respect whereof refund is being sought are admittedly her personal funds to the knowledge of the petitioner and there can thus, be no dispute about her entitlement to this refund. 21. We therefore direct the respondent to issue the refund of Rs. 6,44,960/- in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and the said amount be credited to the Petitioner’s Savings Bank Account No. 036401502472 with ICICI Bank, MICR No. 110229056, IFSC Code : ICIC0000364, Old Rajinder Nagar branch, New Delhi. 22. With the above directions, the present application stands disposed of. 23. List the matter for compliance on 17th October, 2022. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 31, 2022 j 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 26/06/2026 at 08:59:30