Delhi High Court
J.K.V.B. Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Acit, Circle 13 (2) on 18 September, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6610/2020
J.K.V.B. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate.
versus
ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2) ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate
with Mr. Pratayash Gupta, 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 seeking refund of Rs.3,52,620/- as
determined under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') along with interest @ 9% per annum for alleged
delay in releasing the refund from 01st April, 2011 till the date of payment.
3. In the petition, it has been averred that the petitioner had filed its
return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 claiming refund of
Rs.3,52,620/-. He states that after processing the return, the respondent
under Section 143(1) determined the refund amount as Rs.2,80,730/- vide
order dated 08th November, 2012.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the refund voucher of
Rs.2,80,730/- issued in this case in 2012 could not be deposited for
encashment within 90 days from the date of issue as the refund was sent to
the wrong address.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that the petitioner had also
filed rectification applications way back on 05th April, 2016 as well as on
05th January, 2017 and 01st February, 2017 stating that interest amount of
Rs.1,29,961/- under Section 234C had been erroneously charged, whereas,
as per the return of income, it should have been Rs.58,059/-. Accordingly,
the petitioner had prayed for rectification and for issue of refund of
Rs.71,902/- on account of excess interest charged.
6. He states that despite continuous follow up, the applications for
rectifications have not been decided.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is
entitled to interest for delay in not releasing the refund in time.
8. Issue notice.
9. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent. He states that the he has received instructions that the
refund of Rs.2,80,730/- which was blocked earlier has now been
successfully unblocked and will shortly appear for approval by the Range
Head which will be carried out expeditiously and after the same, the refund
will be issued to the assessee.
10. He further clarifies that refund of Rs.71,890/- had already been
adjusted against the outstanding demand due from the assessee for
assessment year 2012-13.
11. He also states that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest under
Section 244A of the Act.
12. In rejoinder, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned counsel, states that the
petitioner is not pressing for any interest in the present proceeding.
13. Consequently, the respondent is directed to expedite the issuance of
the refund voucher to the petitioner and ensure that the same is issued to the
petitioner within four weeks.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
15. 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
