CISCO SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL B.V V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/18269/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Cisco Systems International B.V, which filed a writ petition against various income tax authorities and the Union of India, seeking a directive to process their income tax return for the assessment year 2012-13 and issue a refund of Rs. 28,17,68,629 along with interest. The petitioner argued that despite filing the return, no action was taken to process it, and similar circumstances in previous years had led to refunds. The respondents contended that the return was filed manually and lacked necessary orders on condonation of delay, making it invalid for processing. The court, referencing a similar case (W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT]), directed the respondents to process the return and communicate the decision within eight weeks, keeping all contentions open.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751272 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT]
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP; PREETHA MAHADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESWAR RAO
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2012-13; Condonation of delay; Income Tax Return; Mandamus; Refund
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18269 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: CISCO SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL B.V INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF NETHERLANDS, HAARLERBERGWEG, 13-19, 11001 CH AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS (C/O ERNST AND YOUNG LLP 1ST FLOOR, A WING DIVYASREE CHAMBERS, O SHAUGHNESSY ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, SHATNINAGHAR, BENGALURU - 560027) PAN AADCC9201D REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SRIHAR VARANASI, SENIOR MANAGER TAX OF AFFILLIATE ENTITY - CISCO SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LT. AGED 52 YEARS, R/A FLAT 8173, SOBHA FOREST VIEW APARTMENT, VAJARAHALLI MAIN RD, OFF KANAKAPURA RD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560062 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESWAR RAO , ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE -1(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560095 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560095 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION( SOUTH (ZONE), C R BUILDING, NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 4. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI- 110001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; MS. PREETHA MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROCESS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13 (VIDE ANNX-A) AND OR IN ANY CASE FORTHWITH ISSUE REFUND OF RS. 28,17,68,629 TOGETHER WITH INTEREST TILL DATE OF PAYMENT OF REFUND INTO PETITIONER BANK ACCOUNT AS LAWFULLY DUE TO THE PETITIONER. - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed for the following relief: “Issue appropriate writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents to process return of income for AY 2012-13 (vide Annexure-A) and/or in any case, forthwith issue refund of Rs.28,17,68,629/- together with interest till date of refund into Petitioner’s bank account as lawfully due to the Petitioner.” Sri. Nageswar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. M. Dilip, the learned Standing counsel for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal of this petition in the light of this Court’s order dated 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT]. 2. If the present petition is for the assessment year 2012-13, the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 [T- IT] is for the assessment year 2010-11 and the prayer - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 in both these petitions are the same. This Court has disposed of the petition in W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT] taking on record the submissions by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner’s request for processing returns for the assessment year 2010-11 would be considered and a decision taken. This Court has allowed eight weeks for such decision observing that all contentions are kept open and the respondents could call for any further information/documents as may be required from the petitioner. Further, this Court has observed that the consideration shall not be delayed beyond eight weeks in the guise of securing such information or seeking reliefs. 3. Sri. Nageswar Rao submits that the petitioner has filed Income Tax Returns on 20.10.2015 for the present assessment year (2012- 13) on receipt of the Communication dated 20.12.2013 [Annexure-B] from the Compliance - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 Management Cell, Income Tax Department, New Delhi. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner will be entitled for refund in terms of the returns so filed but no action is taken to process a request for returns; that insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 and the later assessment years as well, the Tribunal, in very similar circumstances, has allowed refund. 4. Sri. M. Dilip submits that unlike for the assessment year now relied upon, the returns for the subject assessment year [2012-13] is filed manually but it will not be valid, and he also canvasses that unless the returns are valid with necessary orders on condonation of delay, the request for process of returns cannot be considered. Sri. M.Dilip further submits that the learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT] could not bring forth these circumstances for consideration by this Court - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 or the CBTD’s Circular No.9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 that will be relevant. 5. In rejoinder, Sri Nageswar Rao submits that the petitioner’s cause for the petition is because no decision is taken though returns are filed in the month of March 2012 and the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for directions to the respondents to process the request so that the respondents, if they do not consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify the refund, can pursue remedy as otherwise available in law. 6. The rival submissions are considered, and the significant fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner’s returns is not processed, and therefore, the question of refund. Presently, a set of circumstances are being offered to contend that the petitioner may not be entitled for refund, but it cannot be gainsaid that unless the petitioner’s return - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 is processed and a decision taken by a reasoned order, the petitioner would be justified in approaching this Court for a direction as now sought for. Hence, the petition must be favored and disposed of with a direction which would be similar to the directions issued in W.P.No.7827/2023 [T-IT], and as such, the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed-in-part directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request to process returns of income filed for the assessment year 2012-13 and for consequential order on refund, if any. The respondents must so process and consider, and communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner within a period of eight [8] weeks from today. - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36763 WP No. 18269 of 2023 It would be needless to observe that all contentions are kept open. Sd/- JUDGE RB "