Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Intertek India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 July, 2021

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla

                          $~65
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 6361/2021

                                 INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED             ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate with
                                                       Mr. Prashant Meharchandani and
                                                       Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocates.
                                                    versus

                                 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent
                                              Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing
                                                      counsel.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                                              ORDER

% 26.07.2021 The application has been heard by way of video conferencing. CM Appl.21995/2021 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.

1. Present application has been filed in a disposed of writ petition seeking directions to the respondent to issue fresh computation in consonance with the rectification order dated 09th July, 2021 within four weeks and to adjudicate the rectification application filed by the petitioner with respect to the interest under Sections 234A under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and the consequential issue of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act within the same period.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner received a rectification order dated 09th July, 2021 wherein it has been mentioned that refund of the adjusted amount of Rs.11,45,74,210/- and the self-assessment plus advance tax of Rs.1,22,31,222/- have been allowed. He points out that the order reads that these credits were allowed earlier as well but due to some technical glitch, the same were not allowed by the system.

3. He further states that along with the rectification order dated 09th July, 2021, the petitioner has once again received the exact same computation sheet which it had received along with the earlier rectification order dated 06th November, 2020. He states that the petitioner has been placed in the same situation as it was prior to the filing of the last rectification application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the statement made by the counsel for the respondent in Court on the last date of hearing, when the writ petition was disposed of, is contrary to the computation dated 09th July, 2021. The order dated 12th July, 2021 disposing of the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's rectification application for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 24th November, 2020 within a period of four weeks. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to issue consequential refunds as determined by the respondent along with statutory and other interest within the same period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the errors pointed out in the rectification application dated 24th November, 2020 are mere computation mistakes apparent on the face of the record as provided under Section 154(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the same have not been disputed by the respondent till date. He further states that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6361/2021 Page 2 of 5 By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:28.07.2021 21:19:19 respondent did pass a rectification order dated 06th November, 2020, however, the same is perverse and some mistakes therein are contrary to the undisputed record and the others are so obvious that the computation is at variance with the rectification order itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent has failed to discharge its duties as mandated by law, by not rectifying the mistakes made by it under Section 143(1) of the Act, an intimation dated 31st March, 2017 for the past three years despite rectification applications filed by the petitioner on three occasions [26th April, 2018, 15th November, 2019 and 24th November, 2020] and repeated reminders.

5. He submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent is in clear violation of Section 154(8) of the Act, which mandates that the Authority before which the rectification application is pending has to pass an order within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it. He also submits that the inaction of the respondent is contrary to and in violation of CBDT Circular No.14/2001 and CBDT Instructions No.3/2013 and 1/2016.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of this Court in Hyosung Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C). No. 4736/2020.

7. Issue Notice. Mr.Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He states that the petitioner's rectification application dated 24th November, 2020 has been allowed and petitioner's claim has been processed for refund and communicated to CPC Bangalore.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with pending application by directing the respondent to make the payment of the refund to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that instead of refund, the petitioner has been served with a demand notice of Rs.1,56,57,140/-.

6. Issue notice.

7. Mr. Kunal Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that he has received instruction from the Assessing Officer stating that on 09th July, 2021, he had passed the refund order and it was communicated to the Centralized Processing Centre (for short "CPC"). He states that the CPC has not acted on the said refund order and passed a demand notice.

8. However, a perusal of the annexures to the present application reveals that even the impugned computation sheet has been digitally signed by the concerned Assessing Officer!

9. This Court finds that the impugned order in the present application has been passed on the third rectification application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the mistakes made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 31st March, 2017 passed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Though this Court and the assessee are being repeatedly informed that the petitioner's claim for refund has been allowed, yet the assessee is at the same position where he was four years ago.

10. This Court also finds that it is being repeatedly saddled with applications in disposed of matters either due to lack of coordination between the Assessing Officer and CPC, Bangalore or due to lack of power or vigilance on the part of the Assessing Officer to implement its own order. This is surprising as there is no dispute on the merits and there is no legal issue to be adjudicated.

11. This Court is of the opinion that assesses/taxpayers cannot be made to run from pillar to post for securing their legitimate tax refunds and that too after they have been determined by the revenue itself. This has become a problem as the taxpayers for securing their legitimate refunds have to time and again approach the Courts for their release.

12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the issue of lack of coordination between the Assessing Officer and CPC, Bangalore and/or empowerment of Assessing Officer needs to be examined at the highest level. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to place the entire paper book along with today's order before the Chairman, CBDT, so that a proper standard operating system is put in place and orders passed by the Assessing Officer are given effect to within a time frame and no inconvenience is caused to the assessee as well as to the Court. The matter shall be forwarded to the Chairman, CBDT by the counsel for the respondent along with the entire paper book and order sheets forthwith.

13. Let the report of the Chairman, CBDT be placed on record within four weeks from today.

14. List the matter on 16th September, 2021.

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 26, 2021 js Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6361/2021 Page 5 of 5 By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:28.07.2021 21:19:19