2023 (8) TMI 1342 - HC - Income Tax

Settlement of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - petitioner seeks for refund of the excess amount as according to the petitioner there was no delay on the part of the petitioner as the account had been attached by the respondent / Income Tax Department - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the petitioner's account was attached there is no justification in recovering the amount in excess which was to be paid by the petitioner on or before 30.09.2021 recovering an amount in excess is unjustified. At the same time, since the amount of Rs. 7,15,678/- was only payable and was paid Rs. 9,32,536/- (Rs. 17,19,782 Rs. 7,87,246), the petitioner is liable to pay interest on Rs. 7,15,678/- at 10% at Rs. 71,568/-. The balance amount after appropriation of the aforesaid amount has to be refunded back to the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 9,32,536/- as expeditiously as possible within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves the application of Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSVS Act) for settling tax disputes, attachment of bank account by Income Tax Authorities, recovery of excess amount, and refund of the same.

Vivad se Vishwas Scheme Application:
The petitioner opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and filed Form 1 and 2 within the stipulated time frame. The respondent proceeded to attach the petitioner's account despite the scheme being in place, leading to a dispute over the recovery of the determined amount under the VSVS Act.

Income Tax Assessment and Appeal:
The petitioner had previously received an Impugned Assessment Order under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the petitioner against this order, coinciding with the announcement of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, providing an opportunity to settle the dispute.

Attachment of Bank Account and Recovery:
The Income Tax Authorities attached the petitioner's bank account before the due date for payment under the VSVS Act, resulting in the appropriation of a significant amount from the account. Despite a balance remaining unpaid due to the attachment, the Income Tax Department collected a further sum after the due date, leading to a dispute over the excess recovery.

Judgment and Relief:
Considering the circumstances, the court found the recovery of the excess amount unjustified due to the attachment of the petitioner's account. The court directed the respondents to refund the excess amount promptly, ensuring the petitioner is not burdened with additional liability beyond what was rightfully due. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were instructed to refund the specified sum within a set timeframe.