Arvind Kumar V. The Union Of India and Ors

CWJC/622/2018

AI Insights

The case involved Arvind Kumar, the petitioner, who approached the Patna High Court due to delays in receiving an income tax refund. The Income Tax Department contended that the delays were caused by the petitioner's failure to provide correct particulars initially. However, subsequent proceedings revealed that the necessary paperwork was completed with the petitioner's cooperation, and the claim was forwarded to the CPC for processing. The court's intervention was sought to expedite this process, leading to the final disposal of the case with directions to the department to hasten the refund process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686589 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RISHI SINHA; SHILPI KESHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: UDAY SINGH
• Keywords: Income Tax Refund; Procedural Delay; Document Processing

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.622 of 2018 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar S/o Late Sukhdeo Diwedi, resident of Raghunathpur, P.S. Saidabad, P.S. Rani Talab, Ditrict Patna. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi, New Delhi-110016 2. The Director, CBDT, New Delhi, New Delhi 110016. 3. The Income Tax Officer C P C Bangaluru Karnatka, 560500. 4. The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Lok Nayak Bhawan Patna. 5. The Income Tax Officer Range 4 Lok Nayak Bhawan Patna. 6. 7. The Manager S B I PUNE Refund Control Unit, Pune. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Lok Nayak Bhawan, Patna … …. Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Sr.S.C. Ms. Shilpi Keshri, Jr. S.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) Date : 29-07-2019 Heard Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. It is because a refund of the income tax deposit was not forthcoming that the petitioner had to approach this Court and while the stand of the department is that it is because of the laches on the part of the petitioner in furnishing correct particulars which has consumed time, the petitioner has disowned the charge. Patna High Court CWJC No.622 of 2018 dt.29-07-2019 2/3 It is bearing note of nature of contest that this Court by the order dated 24.6.2019 while recording the relief prayed, allowed the petitioner to approach the concerned Income Tax Officer, who was also arraigned as a party and the said officer was in turn asked to complete the formalities for processing the refund claim. When the matter came up next on 1.7.2019 learned counsel for the Department informs that the paper work has been completed with cooperation of the petitioner and that the Income Tax Officer would now be processing the refund. A prayer was made for eight weeks’ time but considering the nature of the grievance raised, we allowed four weeks’ time and that is how the matter is posted today. When taken up Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, admits to the steps taken by the Department towards processing of the claim by producing communication received from the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 4(1), Patna dated 5.7.2019. Learned counsel also admits that he has received intimation from the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) as regarding the processing of the claim which has been successfully submitted before the ‘CPC’. Patna High Court CWJC No.622 of 2018 dt.29-07-2019 3/3 According to Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Department, once this process is completed, the time, if any, is mere procedural and the refund would be paid shortly. In such view of the matter, and where the dispute as regarding lack of papers, documents etc. has been resolved under the orders of this Court and the matter has reached the CPC for further action on the claim, we dispose of the matter with an advice to the Department to expedite the same. Let Zerox copy of the communication received by the petitioner be maintained on records of this case. With the observations above, we dispose of the writ petition. Anjula/Surendra (Jyoti Saran, J) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.08.2019 Transmission Date NA "