TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril, 2016. First, he does not deem it proper to inform the petitioner in writing why he cannot deal with the application and after the petitioner moves the Court, the stand taken is that no direction can be given to him till 31st March, 2017 which is the last date to process the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. This attitude on the part of the Assessing Officer is preposterous. The action of the officer on the ground urged seems to be in complete variance with the higher echelons of administration of the tax administration being an assessee friendly regime. In this case, the return was filed on 29th November, 2015, yet there is no reason why the Assessing Officer has not processed the refund and taken a decision to grant or not g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and granting refund consequent thereto in accordance with Section 143 (1D) of the Act. This petition relates to Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are as under : (a) On 29th November, 2015, the petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 139 of the Act. In its return, the petitioner declared an income of ₹ 144.48 crores and claimed a refund of ₹ 27.24 crores. (b) On 12th April, 2016, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the petitioner relating to the subject assessment year. (c) On 27th April, 2016, the petitioner requested the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in respect of its return filed for A.Y. 2015-16. 4. The Assessing Officer yet did not respond to the petitioner's demand for refunds. Thus, the present petition seeking a mandamus to the Assessing Officer to process the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act and consequent refund, if due, is filed. 5. The respondent Revenue has responded to the petition by filing an affidavitinreply dated 7th September, 2016 of Mr. Rishi Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In the affidavitinreply, it is pointed out that the reason for not processing the petitioner's return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act and considering the refund due consequent thereto under Section 143(1D) of the Act was CBDT Instruction No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting Works, 259 ELT 33 wherein it is held that where a provision of law was declared ultra virus by the competent Court then the same will be binding on all Authorities administering the Act all over the Country. This so long as there is no contrary decision on that point. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, obliged to ignore Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January, 2015 and decide the petitioner's application to process the refund under Section 143(1) of the Act and consider the applicability of subsection 1(D) of Section 143 of the Act to the facts of the present case for the purpose of grant of refund. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue does not dispute that the decision of the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer to dispose of a case in a particular manner nor can the instructions be prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, the circulars / orders / instructions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act would be binding upon the Revenue only to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Such Instructions, if not beneficial to the assessee, cannot prevail over the Act. In the above view, the Delhi High Court held that Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January, 2015 issued by the CBDT is unsustainable in law and, therefore, set it aside. It must also be pointed out that the Revenue is not disputing the decision of the Delhi High Court in Tata Teleservices Ltd. (supra) either on facts or in law. Therefore, in view of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deem it proper to inform the petitioner in writing why he cannot deal with the application and after the petitioner moves the Court, the stand taken is that no direction can be given to him till 31st March, 2017 which is the last date to process the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. This attitude on the part of the Assessing Officer is preposterous. 10. The action of the officer on the ground urged seems to be in complete variance with the higher echelons of administration of the tax administration being an assessee friendly regime. In fact, the CBDT has itself issued Instruction No.7/2012, dated 1st August, 2002 wherein they have specifically directed the officers of the Revenue to process all returns in which refunds are payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
