High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed alleging contempt of the order dated 27thAugust, 2019.
Brief Facts:
As per the petitioner vide intimation order dated 22 nd October, 2021, a tax refund amount for the assessment year 2020-21 was wrongfully adjusted against the alleged outstanding demand relating to the assessment year 2018-19, in violation of the Court’s order dated 27th August, 2019.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner filed a grievance with the Centralized Processing Centre (‘CPC’) of the Income Tax Department which was summarily closed, by way of a non-speaking order. She stated that the Petitioner thereafter applied to Respondent No.3 for rectification of the intimation under Section 143(l) for the Assessment Year 2020-2l, and for issuing the balance income tax refund amount. However, the same was denied to the petitioner.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent No.1 has been wrongly arrayed as a party to the present proceeding, inasmuch as, he is not a party to the initial writ petition.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that a perusal of the paperbook reveals that the learned predecessor Division Bench vide order dated 27th August, 2019 has directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for recovery of tax which has already been deducted from the petitioner’s salary by the respondent No.4-employer. HC observed that even in the communication, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has admitted that in view of the High Court’s order, the outstanding demand has been marked as ‘non-collectable’ in ITBA system.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “once the said demand had been marked as ‘non-collectable’, there is no question of any refund being adjusted against the said demand. Though this Court is further of the view that no contempt is made out, yet this Court in accordance with the earlier order dated 27th August, 2019, directs the respondents to refund the adjusted amount to the petitioner within four weeks.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Case Title: Pavan Gaur v. N Sairaj & Ors.
Case Details: CONT.CAS(C) 258/2022 & CM APPL. 11501/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :