9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny proceedings and such refund is withheld, a reasoned order has to follow because the assessment in such a case is done after production of materials and evidence required by the AO. That apart and in any event the petitioner/assessee is a public limited company whose accounts are stringently scrutinized at the internal level. It is, therefore, more so required to apply the provisions more cautiously while withholding the refund after the same has been declared on completion of assessment on scrutiny. Analysis and findings the action on the part of the respondents in withholding of the refund for the assessment year 2018-19 is not sustainable in law and is set aside and quashed. The petitioner, is therefore, entitled to a mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - as assessed by the concerned Assessing Officer. The total income tax refund for the assessee for the assessment year 2018-2019 after addition of interest of ₹ 1,83,14,260/- under the provisions of Section 244A of the said Act was computed as ₹ 20,14,56,936/- . A refund sequence No. 8769058640 was also mentioned in the said intimation stating that the process of income tax return was complete. The assessee on checking the refund status at the TIN-NSDL website, however, found the following message displayed thereat, Your Assessing Officer has not sent the refund to the refund banker, please contact your Assessing Officer. The assessed refund was, thus, not refunded to the petitioner (assessee). The note appended to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferring to, for invoking the provision of Section 245 of the said Act came into existence only on 27th February, 2020 that is about almost a year after the date when the refund was required to be made. The concerned authority in any event according to the petitioner could have withheld the refund on or after 13th November, 2019. 6) On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that there is a total demand of ₹ 47,76,28,500/- as against the petitioner for different periods. Scrutiny in respect of such periods are going on. The revenue as such is not liable to make the refund in view of the provision of Section 245 of the said Act. Apart from this submission, revenue has cited no specific reason for withholding the refund. No details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng against the petitioner/assessee either for a previous or subsequent period. 8) The very essence of passing of the order under Section 241A is application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the issues which are germane for withholding the refund on the basis of statutory prescription contained in the said Section. The power of the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the section 241A can be exercised not only after he forms an opinion that the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue and thereafter with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as an order for refund after assessment under Section 143(3) of the said Act pursuant to a notice under Section 143(2) is subject to appeal or further proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 87 Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, as Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and actual conclusions. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. No reasons were assigned by the Officer concerned by referring to any materials that refund declared in case of the petitioner/assessee on being actually made will adversely affect the revenue. No demand as against the petitioner was pending on the date when refund was notified. The petitioner/assess became entitled to the refund immediately on completion of assessment and refund on being notified. The Assessing Officer could not have kept the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning reasons and not otherwise. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer withheld the refund without assigning any reason though the statute mandates for recording the same. Having not done so the officer concerned has acted arbitrarily. The procedure followed by the Assessing Officer does not also show the proper application of two independent provisions as in Section 241A and Section 143 wherein once a refund is declared after scrutiny proceedings and such refund is withheld, a reasoned order has to follow because the assessment in such a case is done after production of materials and evidence required by the Assessing Officer. That apart and in any event the petitioner/assessee is a public limited company whose accounts are stringently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
