Full Judgment Text
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.09.2023
+ W.P.(C) 10647/2022
EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Salil Kapoor with Mr Sumeet
Lalchandani, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr Standing
Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
1. The substantial prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 17,09,923/- and Rs.
1,21,07,102/- for AY 2009-10 along with up to date interest as
the action of the Respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against
the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ”
2. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel who appears on
behalf of the respondents/revenue, has returned with instructions. According
to his instructions, insofar as the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY
2009-10 is concerned, the income tax return filed for the said AY was
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.10.2023
17:53:02
processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short,
“Act”] and Rs. 4,11,870/- was determined as refund due to the
petitioner/assessee.
3. According to Mr Hossain, this amount was remitted to the petitioner
on 06.04.2011. Having said that, Mr Hossain contends that Rs.17,09,923/-
claimed by the petitioner is not tenable.
4. As regards the other amount, i.e., Rs. 1,21,07,102/-, Mr Hossain once
again, based on instructions received, says that this amount was recovered
from the petitioner’s bank account based on the demand outstanding qua AY
2009-10.
5. Mr Hossain states that since the demand notice no longer survives, the
said amount may have to be remitted to the petitioner/assessee.
6. Mr Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, on
the other hand, says that the petitioner/assessee was never served with the
intimation, if any, under Section 143(1) of the Act, whereby refund was
pegged at Rs. 4,11,870/-
7. Given the aforesaid position, in our view, a direction can be issued to
the respondents/revenue to remit Rs. 1,21,07,102/- to the petitioner/assessee
along with applicable interest within the next four (4) weeks.
7.1 It is ordered accordingly.
8. Insofar as the other aspect is concerned, as to the difference between
Rs. 4,11,870/- and Rs. 17,09,923/-, Mr Kapoor says that he will file a
rectification application before the Assessing Officer (AO).
8.1 Liberty in that behalf is granted.
9. In case the petitioner was to file a rectification application within two
(2) weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order, the same will be decided by the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.10.2023
17:53:02
AO within four (4) weeks thereafter.
10. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023 /pmc
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 10647/2022 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.10.2023
17:53:02