TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess in helping the assessee who has otherwise done what all it needed to do at his ends. This appears to be a classic case where, there is a technical glitch which no officer could have helped. The CPGRMS was approached by the petitioner and thereafter, it had on number of occasions attempted to approach the respondent No.2 - the Principal commissioner of Income Tax for its redressal . However, in wake of the technical glitch in the system, the payment of refund was not possible. Approval was already granted and sent to CPC, Bangalore for issuance of the refund. It had declared the accounting closed as per the version of the respondent in affidavit-in-reply, no action was permissible as nothing would be visible to the AO. We need also to take note of Section 119A of the I.T. Act where, it is an obligation of the Board to adopt and declare a Taxpayer s Charter and issue such instructions, directions and guidelines to the Income Tax authorities as upon administratively necessary. The Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) also approached the number of occasions by the petitioner as the application had been filed and there are merely 5 communications w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulted into the refunds of of taxes due to the petitioner with effect from 4.4.2018. 6. The grievance on the part of petitioner is that though the order giving effect determining the refund was passed on 4.4.2018, no refund was issued to the petitioner. 7. Request is made on the part of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 on 24.1.2020 after merely two years where, the petitioner has also pointed out certain errors in computation of interest due on the refund. However, no heed was paid to the said communication. 8. The petitioner once again reminded the respondent No.1 for refund on 9.10.2020 and 19.1.2022, but no reply was given nor the refund was given to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner filed an application before the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRMS) for issuance of refund on 28.8.2020, 10.09.2020, 10.11.2020, 20.1.2021 and 05.05.2021 with no avail. 10. The petitioner thereafter wrote to the respondent No.2 on 19.1.2022. However, when the respondent No.2 also did not pay any attention to such request, he has approached this Court by way of present petition urging this Court that withholding of the refund due to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was duly approved by the Range Head. The refund has been sent to the CPC, Bangalore, The same shows as Accounting Closed by the CPC. No action therefore, can be initiated or pursued as the same is neither visible nor being pushed for any further action. According to the respondent, once refund was determined and approval had been granted by the Additional CIT, Range 3(1), Ahmedabad vide letter dated 15.10.2020 in response to the AO s letter for refund. The refund has been duly calculated and sent to the CPC, Bangalore. 14 The assessee had filed an application for issuance of refund on 28.8.2020. This is reiterated that no refund has been issued by the CPC, When once again, the incident has been again raised vide Ticket No. 1368927 on 6.8.2021, the same is re-produced as under:- GPGRAM Matter (PAN: AAACN5350K) for the A.Y.1998-99. Refund of Rs.17,15,34,707/- has been initiated by passing manual order in case of Nirmal Ltd. for the A.Y.1998-99, but not received till date. Kindly resolve the issue as soon as possible. Attachment for the same is enclosed herewith: Solution given by the CPC: The CPC had stated that, The AO has uploaded the manual order for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e harassment to the assessee, the assessing officer himself has shown difficulties and this helplessness in helping the assessee who has otherwise done what all it needed to do at his ends. This appears to be a classic case where, there is a technical glitch which no officer could have helped. The CPGRMS was approached by the petitioner and thereafter, it had on number of occasions attempted to approach the respondent No.2 - the Principal commissioner of Income Tax for its redressal . However, in wake of the technical glitch in the system, the payment of refund was not possible. 21. Bombay High Court in similar case Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2019)110 taxmann.com.185 (Bombay) was considered in the non-grant of the refund when on several occasions, the petitioner had written to the department with no avail. There was TDS mismatch of as small as Rs.1 which was cited as reasons for not releasing the refund. The Court has held that:- 8. The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. In the present case, the correct legal position is that the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entitlement of the petitioner from the year 2018. This petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondent to release the refund of amount of Rs.17,15,34,707/- with statutory interest within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order . 23. This may be story of many petitioners who may not be the position either to approach this Court or may be waiting for the department to respond. In the large number of cases, the refund claims are made where for no fault of assessee, the refund has not been given as required under the law within the time frame. The Department shall require to redress the same at the earliest any limitation noticed in the software shall also be corrected at the earliest. We would request the learned Standing Counsel to send this to the highest authority for it to pay its attention at the earliest and do the needful in fulfilling its statutory obligation when e-mode is the only mode. 24. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of refund of appeal under Section 240 of the I.T. Act which provides thus:- 240. Refund on appeal, Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
