IJM CORPORATION V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [TDS]

WP/15866/2011

AI Insights

The case involves IJM Corporation, Berhad, the petitioner, who was aggrieved by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2). The dispute centered around the coercive measures taken by the Income Tax department to recover dues, which led to the seizure of the petitioner's accounts and subsequent payment of Rs.4,42,99,095 by the petitioner to the Income Tax department. The petitioner sought a resolution through the court, leading to an agreement where the respondent No. 2 would issue a certificate acknowledging the deduction, allowing the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Authority for further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747342 (HC-JABALPUR)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY LAL; ARUN PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKALP KOCHAR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Refund claim; Certificate of Deduction

Judgement Text

"W.P.No. 15866 / 2011 (IJM Corporation, Berhad Vs.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur & two others) 27-04-2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3. Shri Arun Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Though this petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No. 2, dated 30-8-2011, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the statement made by the respondent No. 2 in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the additional parawise reply, the petition be disposed of in terms thereof permitting the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the respondent No. 2 and thereafter take up further proceedings before the Income Tax Authority in accordance with law. The respondent No. 2 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner. It is stated that they have brought the below mentioned facts before this Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 :- “16. In between the Income Tax department initiated coercive measures to recover above dues from the answering W.P.No. 15866 / 2011 (IJM Corporation, Berhad Vs.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur & two others) respondent and seized their land acquisition and R&R accounts. The answering respondent in view of this development paid tax of Rs.4,42,99,095 to Income Tax department. This sum was paid out of Rs.5,73,92,946 which were withheld from [payment of financial year 2009-10. 17. The respondent has paid this sum of Rs. 4,42,99.095 on 19.3.2012. The photocopy of challan is enclosed herewith. The necessary certificate has been issued to petitioner on ......The petitioner may file this certificate before his assessing officer and if the income is below taxable limit or loss he can claim refund of Rs.4,42,99.095 from his assessing officer.” It is clarified by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the date of issuance of certificate has not been mentioned in paragraph 17 as the certificate has not been issued. He, however, undertakes to issue the aforesaid certificate within a week. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the submissions made by them in paragraphs 16 and 17 of their additional parawise reply and in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that a certificate of deduction of a sum of W.P.No. 15866 / 2011 (IJM Corporation, Berhad Vs.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur & two others) Rs.4,42,99.095 shall be issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 within a week on the basis of which the petitioner would be at liberty to take up further proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law, including filing of an application for refund of the excess amount withheld by the respondent No. 2. With the aforesaid directions/liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules. (Ajit Singh) (R.S.Jha) Judge Judge mct W.P.No. 15866 / 2011 (IJM Corporation, Berhad Vs.. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur & two others) "