Faceless Assessment: HC asks why AO should not pay interest on delayed refund of Rs 65 Cr from his own pocket in matter of Tata Projects
Reetu | Apr 5, 2022 |
Faceless Assessment: HC asks why AO should not pay interest on delayed refund of Rs 65 Cr from his own pocket in matter of Tata Projects
The High Court of Bombay in the matter of Tata Projects Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ruled out that “HC asks why AO should not pay interest on delayed refund of Rs.65 Cr from his own pocket.”
The Petitioner’s grievance is that though there has been an intimation on 23rd November 2021 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) that petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs.64,92,16,450/-, petitioner has not received the refund. Petitioner has sent reminders and still did not get the refund. In fact petitioner has been informed to wait for some time.
The Coram Found out that, “The petition is also annexed a photocopy of “Citizen’s Charter 2014, a declaration of our commitment to the taxpayers” by the Income Tax Department where it says issue of refund alongwith interest under Section 143(1) of the Act will be made within six months from the date of the return and in this case, indisputably, returns was filed on 15th February 2021.”
The High Court rule out that, “In our view, CBDT should be informed about this order because a similar order has been passed yesterday, i.e., 23rd March 2022, in another matter. This Court fails to understand why when refund is admittedly due, the Department is reluctant to issue the refund orders and pushing the assessee to rush to the Court.”
Further “Within two weeks from today, respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 (not below the rank of Assistant Director of Income Tax) shall file an affidavit in reply and serve a copy thereof explaining why the refund is not being issued. Respondent nos.4 and 5 shall also explain why the concerned officer, who is delaying the refund, should not be penalized in as much as why he should not be directed to pay the interest from his pocket on the refund. We note this because though petitioner will be getting refund with 6% interest, it is public money that is being used to pay the interest.”
The Judgment was made K.R. SHRIRAM and N.R. BORKAR.
The Petitioner was represented by Mr. J. D. Mistri and Respondent represented Mr. Suresh Kumar.
To Read Judgment Download PDF Given Below:
In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]
Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"
