Delhi High Court
S. K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Acit, Circle 22 (2) on 18 September, 2020
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6612/2020
S. K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate.
versus
ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2) ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 18th September, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of
the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video
conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the
respondent to give appeal effect to the order dated 26th September, 2007 passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2003-04 in favour of
the assessee as well as to grant refund determined for the assessment years 2014-
15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 or for any other assessment year but
adjusted against the demand for this year along with interest under Section
244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
3. In the petition, it has been averred that the petitioner filed its return of
income for assessment year 2003-2004 claiming refund of Rs.10,323/-.
However, the respondent after processing the return under Section 143(1) raised
a demand of Rs.89,352/- on account of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of
the Act.
4. In a rectification proceeding, the respondent reduced the demand to
Rs.22,946/- as the surcharge had been charged twice over.
5. Subsequently, on 26th September, 2007, the Income Tax Appellate
Authority allowed the petitioner's appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the
interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent did not give appeal
effect to the said order despite the petitioner writing letters dated 11 th January,
2008, 05th November, 2015 and 06th May, 2019. He submits that despite the time
limit prescribed under Section 153(5) of the Act having expired, respondent
cannot refuse to give appeal effect to the order passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act.
7. Issue notice.
8. Mr. Kunal Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice. He states that the
respondent shall dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 11th January,
2008, 05th November, 2015 and 06th May, 2019 by way of a reasoned order
within four weeks.
9. The statement made by Mr. Kunal Sharma, learned counsel, is accepted by
this Court and the respondent is held bound by the same.
10. Recording the aforesaid undertaking, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also
forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
sb
