TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at until and unless the quantum of tax is determined in accordance with the procedure laid down by law, the revenue has no right to collect the tax, and, if tax, by way of advance tax or on self-assessment or having been deducted at source, has been paid by the petitioner, the same cannot be retained contrary to the requirements of article of the Constitution. In the present case, admittedly, no assessment order has been passed nor any assessment order could be passed, the same having been barred by the provisions of Section 153(1)(a)(iii). Said view has further been followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharti Engineering Corporation vs. Union of India [ 2006 (5) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]] Resultant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 3. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee filed returned income of INR 55,62,46,132 and claimed refund of INR 8,00,03,940. The case was picked for scrutiny assessment. Draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was passed on 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-3), whereby the income of the petitioner was assessed at INR 137,83,95,032. The petitioner objected to the same before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). DRP confirmed the additions made in the draft assessment order resulting in the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi in its order vide No.ITA/385/Del/2014 dated 21.10.2014 remanded back the order of the AO passed/s 143(3)/144C dated 18.12.2013 back to TPO and no order has been passed in pursuance of Hon'ble ITAT's Direction. The time limit to pass the assessment in the set aside case was 31 March, 2017. Remaining contents of this para are matter of record. 7. The time period for passing the assessment having expired on 31.03.2017, fresh order cannot be passed in view of the statutory bar. Thus, the question that arises is, whether the authorities are entitled to retain the amount deposited by the petitioner after the time limit for passing the fresh order of assessment has expired? 8. The issue is no more res integra . This Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x is without authority of law and its retention is in violation of the provisions of article 265 of the Constitution of India. 9. Said view has further been followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharti Engineering Corporation vs. Union of India, reported as (2008) 298 ITR 400 . 10. Resultantly in light of the consistent view of this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioner after deducting tax liability qua depreciation disallowance of Rs.33,91,637 which stands admitted by the petitioner before Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner will also be entitled to statutory intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
