2020 (8) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification application u/s 154 - refund along with interest in accordance with Section 244A - HELD THAT -Issue notice. Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the limited prayer sought in the present writ petition, this Court disposes of the same by directing the respondent No.2 to decide petitioner s aforesaid rectification application within six weeks by way of a reasoned order and to make payment of refund, if any, in accordance with law. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in disposal of rectification application for assessment year 2009-10.
2. Failure to refund along with interest as per Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Alleged statutory duty violation by respondent No.2.
4. Contravention of CBDT Circulars and Instructions.
5. Limited prayer for directing respondent No.2 to decide rectification application.

Analysis:

1. The petition was filed to direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the rectification application for the assessment year 2009-10 and allow the refund with interest as per Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner highlighted two computation errors in the application, which were undisputed by respondent No.2. The statutory duty of respondent No.2 to decide the application within the stipulated time under Section 154(8) was emphasized, noting that the deadline had passed on 31st August, 2019.

2. The petitioner argued that the inaction of respondent No.2 was in violation of CBDT Circular No.14/2001 and CBDT Instructions No.3/2013 and 1/2016. It was further mentioned that due to a spin-off and transfer of contracts, the petitioner had no operations remaining, and the pending refund was the only reason for keeping the office open.

3. The Court acknowledged the urgency expressed in listing the petition and conducted the hearing via video conferencing. Notice was issued, and respondent's counsel accepted it. The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide on the rectification application within six weeks through a reasoned order. The Court also instructed the payment of any refund due in accordance with the law, while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open.

4. The order was to be uploaded on the website immediately, and a copy was to be sent to the counsel via email. The judgment allowed the exemption, subject to all just exceptions, and the application was accordingly disposed of. The comprehensive analysis addressed the delay in disposal, the statutory duty of respondent No.2, the alleged violations of circulars and instructions, and the specific relief sought by the petitioner in directing the decision on the rectification application.