9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the date of actual payment. 2. We do not wish to go into the details because respondent no. 1 (incorrectly mentioned in the affidavit as respondent no. 2) - Braj Bhushan Pandey, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, has filed an affidavit affirmed on 26th April 2023 in which it is admitted that a net refund of Rs. 153.80 Crores plus interest under Section 244A of the Act became due to be refundable to petitioner. It is also admitted that petitioner made repeated representations to respondents. According to respondent no. 1, there was an outstanding demand of Rs. 266.73 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2017-2018 and admittedly, a stay has been granted to petitioner by respondent no. 1 vide an order dated 27th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid assessment order for AY 2018-19, filed an appeal under section 246A of the Act before the CIT(A)-58, challenging various additions made by Respondent No. 1. Regarding the rectification application, the Petitioner was informed by Respondent No. 1 that he had internally escalated the matter and to resolve the system glitches for uploading the rectification order a ticket was raised in the 'Income Tax Business Administration' system ('ITBA system') of the Revenue authorities. The concerned officer to whom this ticket was raised for, as per Respondent No. 1, was Respondent No. 4. However, despite lapse of a considerable amount of time no solution provided and therefore, on 10th February 2022, in absence of any resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The 3rd Respondent informed that all the clearances at the end of the jurisdictional officers were duly completed and no further action was required to be taken by the officers in Mumbai, viz. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Petitioner however pointed towards Respondent No. 4 and stated that the refunds are pending at CPC's end and that it is the CPC which will take necessary steps to release the due amount. Later, the Petitioner also filed application for stay of the demand raised against penalty orders for AY 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014- 15. Respondent No. 1, vide his orders dated 27th December 2022, directed an adjustment of 20% of the said demands, against the admittedly due refund of AY 2018-19 of Rs. 153.8 crores and granted sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) in Bengaluru could not see the stay granted on 27th December 2022 in its portal, that is not reflected in the affidavit in reply filed. Respondent No. 4 is the Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru who also has chosen not to file any affidavit. We should also note that by an order dated 2nd March 2023 respondents were directed to refund the amount to petitioner immediately alongwith interest in accordance with law. The affidavit in reply dated 26th April 2023 has been filed admitting Rs. 100.49 Crores after adjustment as payable. Still the order dated 2nd March 2023 has not been complied with. 5. Since the affidavit in reply has been filed after the order dated 2nd March 2023 was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
