9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 245 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2023-24 (Annexure-'A'), to the Petitioner along with interest thereon; (iii) In addition, directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose off the stay application filed by the Petitioner on 21.12.2023 (Annexure-'B') in accordance with law and the various instructions issued by the CBDT on the matter, and after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner; (iv) Restraining the Respondents from initiating or pursuing any proceedings to recover the balance demand of tax and interests arising from the assessment order 31.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023-24/1057556479 (1) and bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1057556643(1) (Annexures-'J' and 'J1') during the pendency of the appeal filed before the CIT (A); and (v) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and equity. 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner, by issuance of show- cause notice dated 18.09.2023 under Section 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2023 for the assessment year 2019-20 (adjusted with the demand for the assessment year 2021-22), along with applicable interest at Annexure-F. (iii) Directing the Respondents to forthwith refund an amount of Rs. 4,53,93,633/- determined as refundable to the Petitioner vide intimation dated 21.10.2024 for the assessment year 2023-24 (adjusted with the demand for the assessment year 2021-22), along with applicable interest at Annexure-S. (iv) Directing the Respondents not to recover any portion of the demand pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22 during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT(A) and for a period of three weeks thereafter; and (v) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the Circular dated 31.07.2017 and the petitioner would be entitled to refund of all the amounts payable to him in excess of the aforesaid 20%, the respondents have proceeded to adjust the amounts in excess of 20%, which is the maximum of amount of pre-deposit to be made by the petitioner, who is before this Court seeking direction for refund of the amounts adjusted in excess of 20% and for direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pan Synthetics Private Limited and Centralized Processing Centre and others - W.P.No.9835/2024 dated 23.07.2024 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No.1 would take up the appeals and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 6. A perusal of the material available on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed an appeal on 29.04.2015 and multiple stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand for 2015-16 and 2016-17 is stayed, the question of adjustment of entirety of refund would not arise. 5. It is noticed that the assessment order for the year 2015-16 was passed on 16.02.2024 and for the year 2016-17 was passed on 26.05.2023. 6. It is not in dispute that the application for stay was filed on 11.01.2024 as regards assessment year 2015-16 and on the same date i.e., on 11.01.2024 application for stay was filed as regards the assessment year 2016-17. As on the date of filing of the application for stay, the petitioner had the benefit of order of refund for the year 2023-24. If as on the date of filing the application for stay dated 11.01.2024, if the petitioner had made payment of 20% remaining 80% would have been stayed. 7. In light of adjustment at Annexure-P, only manner of moulding the relief would be adjustment of refund to an extent of 20% of the demand for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17. Once adjusted, the remaining amount of 80% of refund adjusted towards demand requires to be reversed by crediting the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to refund the amount of 80% of the demand for the assessment year 2015-16 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le, he submits that when the petitioner filed appeal, the petitioner was required to pre- deposit 20% of the assessment and the respondents have adjusted the entire amount. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to request respondent Nos.3 and 4 for refund by making a representation within a week. Thereafter, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for refund within three weeks. List on 26.03.2025." 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a representation/ application dated 03.03.2025, which was rejected vide communication dated 25.03.2025. However, having regard to the fact that the aforesaid communication was passed during the pendency of the present petition and finding recorded by him, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of entire amount in excess of 20% for the assessment year 2021-22, I deem it just and appropriate to quash communication also in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of M/s. Price Waterhouse, Bengaluru Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and Ors pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
