GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.778/2022 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT NO.25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. B.V. NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PAN: AABCG8889P

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTER (CPC),

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

POST BAG NO.1,

ELECTRONIC CITY POST OFFICE

BANGALORE - 560 500.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

CENTRAL,

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,

3RD FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD,

BANGALORE - 560 001.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION NO.1 DATED 18TH MARCH 2020 IN DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND INTIMATION NO.2 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 245 OF THE ACT DATED 13TH MAY 2020 IN DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE CPC ADJUSTING THE ENTIRE REFUND FOR AY 2019-20 AGAINST THE DISPUTED DEMAND FOR AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11 AND AY 2014-15 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the intimation dated 13.05.2020 at Annexure-C issued under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the amount wrongfully adjusted against the disputed demands for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed demand for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

It is stated that the petitioner has filed his return of income for the year 2019-20 which was processed by the Authorities. Petitioner submits that the refund entitled to

3 the petitioner has been adjusted to the demand for the assessment year 2010-11 while determining Rs.9,20,64,018/- as refundable to the petitioner. Subsequently, an intimation under Section 245 of the Act has been issued expressing their intention to adjust the refund as regards the Assessment Year 2019-20 for the demand as regards the assessment years 2009-10, 2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. Petitioner further submits that insofar as the assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, the assessment order is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the intimation under Section 245 is not legally tenable as the refund adjustment is sought to be made as regards to the demand which is the subject matter of appeal. It is submitted that the adjustment as contemplated under Section 245 must be as regards amounts presently payable which is not the case in the present factual matrix.

4 4. It is borne out from the records that the adjustment has already been resorted to by the Department pursuant to the intimation under Section 245 of the Act. Considering that the petitioner has made out his objections to the notice under Section 245, copy of which is found at Annexure-H, it would be appropriate to relegate the matter back to the Authority for reconsideration of the aspect relating to notice under Section 245 and orders to be passed regarding the same after considering the objections of the petitioner referred to above.

Accordingly, intimation at Annexure-C issued under Section 245 of the Act is set aside. The matter is relegated to the respondents to reconsider as regards the intimation under Section 245 after considering the objections of the petitioner at Annexure-H. The entire process to be completed within a period not later than six weeks from the date of release of this order. In the event the petitioner is entitled for refund, the same to be made expeditiously.

5 6. In light of the above, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- JUDGE

GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX