2023 (5) TMI 546 - HC - Income Tax

Refund wrongly credited in the account respondent No. 4 and maintained with the respondent No. 2 Bank in the current account of the petitioner maintained with the respondent No. 3 Bank - HELD THAT -The prayer made by the petitioner cannot be acceded to as a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11th November, 2020 2020 (11) TMI 1104 - DELHI HIGH COURT has on similar averments held that the petitioner s petition lack bona fide and raises highly disputed questions of facts. Further, as the order of learned Single Judge has attained finality, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should have taken steps to agitate its claim before the appropriate forum/civil court. WP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for refund of wrongly credited amount.
2. Direction sought to restrain appropriation of the wrongly credited amount.
3. Disputed claims involving multiple parties.
4. Rejection of applications by respondent No. 1.
5. Outstanding demand of respondent No. 4 affecting petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the refund of Rs. 49,90,000 wrongly credited to the account of respondent No. 4, maintained with respondent No. 2 Bank in the petitioner's current account with respondent No. 3 Bank. The petitioner also requested a direction to prevent the appropriation of the amount by respondent No. 1, who had frozen the account of respondent No. 4. The court noted the previous order directing the petitioner to pursue the claim through appropriate legal channels due to disputed facts.

2. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted applications to respondent No. 1 for the release of the funds, supported by affidavits and Indemnity Bonds. However, respondent No. 1 rejected the applications, citing the previous judgment and emphasizing the outstanding demands of respondent No. 4. The petitioner argued that they should not suffer due to the actions of respondent No. 4. The court acknowledged the rejection but emphasized the need for the petitioner to pursue the claim through the appropriate legal forum.

3. The court highlighted that a previous judgment had determined the lack of bona fide in the petitioner's claims and the presence of highly disputed facts. As the decision of the Single Judge had become final, the court concluded that the petitioner should have pursued the matter in the appropriate civil court. Consequently, the present writ petition and application were dismissed, with the petitioner granted liberty to initiate suitable legal proceedings as per the law.

In summary, the court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a refund of the wrongly credited amount and a direction to prevent its appropriation. The judgment emphasized the need for the petitioner to address the disputed claims through the appropriate legal channels, considering the previous ruling and the finality of the Single Judge's decision.