Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax Tds vs Dish Tv India Limited on 17 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165612-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 107 of 2025
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Dish TV India Limited
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ankur Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Vivek Sarin, Akash Gupta
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This review petition has been filed by the Department in relation to order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Writ Tax No. 1953 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the assessee was allowed and directions were given for making payment of refund of Rs. 2,19,42,954/- along with interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed refund amount with effect from 20.12.2022 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner therein.
2. The review petition is barred by 22 days.
3. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition has been filed along with affidavit inter alia indicating the reasons for delay in filing the review petition..
4. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed.
5. Delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Department made submissions that by the order impugned, the Court came to the conclusion that the assessee was not required to file Form 26B and the Department was bound to refund the amount under the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 forthwith on passing of the order by the competent authority.
7. Submissions have been made that while passing the said order and coming to the said conclusion, the provisions of sub Rule 3A of Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 under which, the Department had issued a form on TRACES Portal was not taken into consideration and, therefore, the order impugned calls for review.
8. Learned counsel for the assessee contested the submissions. It was submitted that the plea regarding non filing of Form 26B was raised before the Court and this Court had taken a view with regard to requirement of filing Form 26B. Seeking re-hearing of the matter in the grab of review petition, cannot be permitted. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
10. The contentions raised by the Department were noticed in para-8 of the order and the conclusion was indicated in paras 15 to17 of the order, which read as under: "8. Today Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that after filing of the writ petition, a communication dated 19.11.2024 has been issued to the petitioner requesting the company to submit their claim for refund of excess TDS in prescribed Form 26B through online functionality provided in TRACES so that further necessary action may be taken by the office and that if the petitioner does the needful, the refund would be paid to it" "15. The facts are not in dispute wherein, the petitioner applied under the VSV Act, 2020 and in full and final settlement Form 5 under the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020 was issued entitling the petitioner to refund of Rs.2,19,42,954/-. Despite issuance of the said Form, the amount, which should have been automatically paid by the respondents, was not paid, forcing the petitioner to file the present petition. 16. After filing of the present petition, after a passage of two years, it did not lie on the respondents that the petitioner was required to fill Form 26B of the Income Tax Rules for seeking the refund. The said action of the respondents, has no basis inasmuch as once Form 5 under the VSV Act, 2020 was issued entitling the petitioner to a refund of Rs.2,19,42,954/-, there was no question of the respondents then requiring to file Form 26B as now sought to be demanded by the respondents. 17. A perusal of the Rules would reveal that Form 26B is required to be filled up if the assessee claims refund paid under Chapter XVII-B of the Act, 1961. The stage of requirement of filling up the Form 26B was long over in the year 2008-09 itself and the present refund was being sought by the peititoner in terms of the provisions of the VSV Act, 2020, which did not require filling up any Form, as claimed by the respondents and as such, the demand made has no sanction in law.?
11. The plea as sought to be raised now by way of a review petition was specifically raised by the Department and was dealt with by the Court in a particular manner and the plea raised was rejected.
12. Filing of a review petition, seeking to re-agitate the matter on the issue which was raised and decided by the Court in a particular manner, cannot be countenanced.
13. If the Department is aggrieved by the said finding arrived at by the Court, it is for the Department to question the validity of the said order by way of appropriate proceedings before a higher forum. Filing of review is not an appropriate proceeding for the said purpose.
14. In view thereof, as the Department has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. No case for review of the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court is made out.
15. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) September 17, 2025 Sandeep/Jyoysana