EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ORS.

W.P.(C)/10647/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus for the issuance of tax refunds for the Assessment Year 2009-10, amounting to Rs. 17,09,923/- and Rs. 1,21,07,102/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others were the respondents. The petitioner contended that the actions of the respondents were unjust and arbitrary, violating the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents acknowledged that a partial refund of Rs. 4,11,870/- was processed and remitted to the petitioner, but disputed the additional claims. The court found merit in the petitioner's claim for the Rs. 1,21,07,102/- refund, directing its remittance along with interest, and allowed the petitioner to address the remaining discrepancy through a rectification application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748851 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ZOHEB HOSSAIN; SANJEEV MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL KAPOOR; SUMEET LALCHANDANI
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Digital Signature; Income Tax; Mandamus; Refund
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

" W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.09.2023 + W.P.(C) 10647/2022 EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Salil Kapoor with Mr Sumeet Lalchandani, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. The substantial prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows: “a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 17,09,923/- and Rs. 1,21,07,102/- for AY 2009-10 along with up to date interest as the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, has returned with instructions. According to his instructions, insofar as the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY 2009-10 is concerned, the income tax return filed for the said AY was Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:05.10.2023 17:53:02 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 2 of 3 processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] and Rs. 4,11,870/- was determined as refund due to the petitioner/assessee. 3. According to Mr Hossain, this amount was remitted to the petitioner on 06.04.2011. Having said that, Mr Hossain contends that Rs.17,09,923/- claimed by the petitioner is not tenable. 4. As regards the other amount, i.e., Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, Mr Hossain once again, based on instructions received, says that this amount was recovered from the petitioner’s bank account based on the demand outstanding qua AY 2009-10. 5. Mr Hossain states that since the demand notice no longer survives, the said amount may have to be remitted to the petitioner/assessee. 6. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, on the other hand, says that the petitioner/assessee was never served with the intimation, if any, under Section 143(1) of the Act, whereby refund was pegged at Rs. 4,11,870/- 7. Given the aforesaid position, in our view, a direction can be issued to the respondents/revenue to remit Rs. 1,21,07,102/- to the petitioner/assessee along with applicable interest within the next four (4) weeks. 7.1 It is ordered accordingly. 8. Insofar as the other aspect is concerned, as to the difference between Rs. 4,11,870/- and Rs. 17,09,923/-, Mr Kapoor says that he will file a rectification application before the Assessing Officer (AO). 8.1 Liberty in that behalf is granted. 9. In case the petitioner was to file a rectification application within two (2) weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order, the same will be decided by the Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:05.10.2023 17:53:02 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 3 of 3 AO within four (4) weeks thereafter. 10. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2023/pmc Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:05.10.2023 17:53:02 Signature Not Verified "