ABS INDIA PVT LTD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/13481/2021

AI Insights

The case involves ABS India Pvt Ltd and its managing director, Shri Sunil Arora, as petitioners, who filed a writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, seeking a directive for the expeditious processing and sanctioning of a tax refund claim amounting to Rs.5,17,691 with interest, for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, highlighting the delay in processing their refund request dated 14.08.2013. The respondents acknowledged the delay and agreed to address the petitioner's grievances if given reasonable time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771307 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K S NAVEEN KUMAR; GANESH S
• Keywords: Income Tax Refund; Mandamus; Expeditious Processing
• Section: 153; 244A; 240

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13481 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. ABS INDIA PVT LTD., NO.13, L.R. MANSION, 2ND CROSS, KODIHALLI HAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 008 (REPRESENTED BY SHRI. SUNIL ARORA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI. RAM PRAKASH ARORA) 2. SHRI. SUNIL ARORA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABS INDIA PVT LTD., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI. RAM PRAKASH ARORA, NO.13, LR MANSION, 2ND CROSS, KODIHALLI HAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.S.NAVEEN KUMAR AND SRI. GANESH S., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 2 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA, BMTC BUILDING, 80FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCESS THE REFUND CLAIM AND SANCTION THE REFUND OF RS.5,17,691/- WITH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A READ WITH SECTION 153 AND SECTION 240 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents. 2. In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: \"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to expeditiously process the refund claim and sanction the refund of Rs.5,17,691/- with interest under Section 244A read with Section 153 and Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3 ii) To pass such other orders, directions and writs including the cost of this writ petition as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity.\" 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the grievance of the petitioner that request letter at Annexure – E dated 14.08.2013 seeking sanction of the refund claim with interest has not been processed and no orders has been passed by the respondents so far and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is granted, respondents would take necessary steps to consider the said application and address all the grievance of the 4 petitioner and consider the said request letter and process the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made at the bar, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to process the request letter dated 14.08.2013 and to refund the excess amount along with interest in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- JUDGE SV "