ABS INDIA PVT LTD V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1)

WP/21168/2021

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, Bengaluru, as respondents. The petition sought a directive for the expeditious processing of a rectification application and the consequential refund claim of differential interest amounting to Rs.8,61,572/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09, under Section 244A read with Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, due to the non-processing of the rectification request dated 15.06.2016 by the respondents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695379 (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: Assessment Year; Differential interest; Rectification Application; Refund claim; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 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.21168 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 CIRCLE 1(1)(1) 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 RECTIFICATION APPLICATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL REFUND CLAIM OF DIFFERENTIAL INTEREST OF RS.8,61,572/- COMPUTED UPTO AUGUST 2021 UNDER SECTION 244A READ WITH SECTION 240 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 rectification application and consequential refund claim of differential interest of Rs.8,61,572/- computed upto August 2021 under Section 244A read with Section 240 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 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 rectification request letter at Annexure – G dated 15.06.2016 seeking sanction of the refund of differential 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 rectification request letter dated 15.06.2016 and to refund the differential interest amount 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 "