TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit is specifically indicated in clause No.2 wherein it is specifically stated that the application/claims for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. Principal Commissioners of Income Tax/Commissioners of Income-tax shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such applications/claims if the amount of such claims is not more than Rs.10 lakhs for any one assessment year and the Principal Chief Commissioners of Income- tax/Chief Commissioners of Income-tax shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such application/claims if the amount of such claims exceeds of Rs.10 lakhs but is not more than Rs.50 lakhs for any one assessment year. Looking to the pecuniary jurisdiction, it clearly transpires that the Assessing Officer who was ACIT (TDS); who passed the impugned order of rejection was not having any pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the letter dated 10.12.2020 by which the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi has referred the matter to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar Jharkhand, Patna cannot be ignored, inasmuch as, the competent authority to pass the refund order was CBDT and it is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax, New Delhi. (c) Consequent upon showing cause, if any, and on being satisfied that the said authority does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the refund application for an amount of Rs.14.95 crores, (being restricted in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction) the purported order / communication dated 09.12.2020, passed by the said authority be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief fact of the case as revealed in the instant writ application is that the petitioner-assessee is a licensee as defined under Section 2(39) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is having license under Section 14(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner invited tenders for supply of cables for complete execution of Rural Electrification on Turnkey basis under 10th Plan of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vikas Yojna (RGGVY). Various bidders participated in the bid and after finalization of the tender the works were awarded to various companies for supply erection of rural electrification works for which various contracts were entered into. In January, 2009, the TDS circle, Ranchi, Jharkhand had carried out a survey in exercise of powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after exchange of affidavits and during the pendency of the writ petition, certain developments took place viz., TRACES CPC (TDS) Gaziabad issued a letter dated 22.01.2020 to the DCIT (TDS), Ranchi Circle, Ranchi requesting to process the refund claim manually, inasmuch as, for the period prior to 01.04.2010 online application, cannot be processed through TRACES and for such cases the TDS Assessing Officer may issue the refund manually, after due verification/procedure in view of the Circular No.2/2011. The Assessee yet again filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.931/2020 and the matter was taken up before this Court on 29.6.2020, when the counsel for the Income Tax Department sought adjournment and on 20.07.2020, issues were framed by this Court. (a) Whether the returns filed by the petitioner refers to the deduction of this amount as TDS in the name of their contractors/sub-contractors? (b) Whether the contractors/ sub-contractors have availed of its credit in their tax returns? Finally, the writ petition was heard on 19.08.2020 and in view of two letters issued to the petitioner-assessee dated 20.10.2016 22.01.2020 and the claim having never been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f on a wrong notion of law or otherwise any such deposit has been made, the same would fall within the ambit of the tax collected beyond Article 265. (iv) The action of the respondent Department is directly in conflict with the National Litigation Policy. 5. Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Sr.S.C submits that the ground raised by the petitioner contending that the respondent no.2 had no jurisdiction to decide the refund of TDS is based on presumption on an incorrect interpretation of the Circular No.2/2011 dated 27.4.2011 of the Income Tax Department. In the present case it is an undisputed fact that the respondent no.2 in terms of the said Circular No.2/2011 has the jurisdiction to examine the said application of refund of alleged TDS made by the petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner is relying on paragraph 5.2 of the said Circular No. 2/2011 to allege that the jurisdiction, to examine the said application for refund of the alleged TDS amount of Rs. 14.95 crores, is with the Commissioner (TDS) and not with the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the paragraph 5.2 only provides that a prior administrative approval of the Commissioner (TDS) is required to be obtai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing with the TDS, Circle-Ranchi which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar Jharkhand. The said letter dated 10.12.2020 of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi does not state that the Assessing Officer of the Petitioner, who is Respondent No. 2 herein and also the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Ranchi, cannot decide the said refund application of the Petitioner. The said letter dated 10.12.2020 only forwards the said refund application of the Petitioner to the administrative head of the Income Tax Department in the State of Bihar Jharkhand. Thus, there is no inconsistency in the action of the Respondent No. 2 in rejecting the application of the Petitioner with the letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. He further submits that the Petitioner filed the said refund application with the Respondent No.2 on 09.11.2020. Subsequently, the Respondent No.2, in terms of the circular no. 2/2011 and dated 27.04.2011, had examined the said refund application of the Petitioner and as the said refund application was barred by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax (Pr.CCsIt/CCsIT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such application/claims if the amount of such claims exceeds of Rs.10 lakhs but is not more than Rs.50 lakhs for any one assessment year. The applications/claims for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board. (3) No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made. This limit of six years shall be applicable to all authorities having powers to condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by the competent authority, as far as possible. 7. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Circular No.9/2015 dated 9.6.2015 issued by the Income Tax Department itself, it clearly transpires that it was in supersession of all earlier Instructions /Circulars/Guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) from time to time dealing with the applications for condonation of delay in filing return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming refund. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and the reasons recorded the impugned order is quashed on the point of lack of jurisdiction and the case of the petitioner is remitted to the Board to pass a fresh order of refund in accordance with law. Consequently, the order / communication dated 09.12.2020, passed by Respondent No.2, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), to pass an order on the claim of Refund after going through the relevant documents of the Case also taking in consideration the show-cause Notice dated 15.04.2009 issued by the Revenue which according to the petitioner remained unadjudicated. The Respondent No.1 shall forward the entire documents to the competent authority of the Board along with copy of this order to enable the Board to take a decision on the claim of refund. Let the entire exercise be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order by the Respondent No.1. In the event the claim of refund is allowed the admissible amount be refunded with statutory interest within a period of four weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid directions, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
