2023 (7) TMI 89 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement of refund plus interest u/s 244A - HELD THAT - As admitted that petitioner made repeated representations to respondents. According to respondent no. 1, there was an outstanding demand of Rs. 266.73 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2017-2018 and admittedly, a stay has been granted to petitioner by respondent no. 1 vide an order dated 27th December 2022. By the said order, an adjustment of 20% of the demand against the admitted due refund of Assessment Year 2018-2019 of Rs. 153.80 Crores has been granted and for the balance, stay has been granted till 31st December 2023 or till the disposal of appeal by CIT(A), whichever event occurs earlier. Respondent no. 1 has admitted that even after such an adjustment, petitioner is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 100.49 Crores being the balance refund for Assessment Year 2018-2019. We direct respondent No. 4, i.e., Director of Income Tax, CPC, to ensure that the refund amount of Rs. 100.49 Crores alongwith interest, if any, in accordance with law, is credited to petitioner s account within one week from the date this order is uploaded.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for the immediate issuance of a refund due for Assessment Year 2018-2019, along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Refund due for Assessment Year 2018-2019
The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 153.80 Crores for Assessment Year 2018-2019, which was admitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Despite adjustments made against outstanding demands, the petitioner was still entitled to receive Rs. 100.49 Crores as a balance refund. Various representations were made by the petitioner, and rectification applications were filed to rectify erroneous demands. The court directed the Director of Income Tax, CPC, to ensure the refund amount of Rs. 100.49 Crores, along with any interest, is credited to the petitioner's account within one week.

Issue 2: Compliance with Court Orders
Despite court orders directing the refund, the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) in Bengaluru failed to comply. The court noted that the affidavit in reply admitted the amount payable to the petitioner but stated that the order had not been complied with. The court issued a notice to the Director of Income Tax, CPC, directing him to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for non-compliance. The court emphasized that strict compliance was necessary to avoid aggravated contempt.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with directions for the immediate crediting of the refund amount to the petitioner's account. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and warned of potential contempt proceedings if the directives were not followed meticulously.