9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion of a particular proceeding in a possible manner without due process. At this stage, Respondents /Sri E. I. Sanmathi submits that the Ao could give due credit to the amounts refundable in terms of the order dated 28.02.2023 when the Ao will have to pass Orders-to-Give-Effect to the directions by the DRP. However, he is not able to point out any provision in the statute or otherwise to justify the retention in the peculiarities of this case. In the absence of the statutory provisions or the enablement otherwise in law, the retention of the amount in anticipation of conclusion of the DRP proceedings, and to give credit to this amount while giving-effect to the orders thereafter cannot be accepted. There would be no justification fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E. I. Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition in the light of this undisputed facts. 2. The petitioner, after the orders of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal on 31.07.2020 in IT(TP)A No. 725/Bang/2018, has the advantage of the Assessing Officer s Remand Report dated 31.03.2022 under the provisions of Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the IT Act ], the directions of the DRP dated 31.10.2022 under the provisions of Section 144 C(5) read with Section 254 of IT Act and the order dated 28.02.2023 by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of IT Act. Further, the Joint Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount refundable for the subject assessment year has been adjusted towards demands that could be for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and therefore is not refunded. 5. Sri E. I. Sanmathi elaborates that there is a rectification order on 15.06.2018 for the Assessment year 2010-11, and with the petitioner calling in question the assessment order for this Assessment year [and another Assessment year] in the appropriate proceedings before the ITAT, the assessment orders are quashed, and the proceedings are restored on 18.07.2022 for reconsideration of certain issues. He further emphasizes that the proceedings are pending before the concerned DRP as of today and in the interregnum [in the year 2023] the refund payable for the Assessment Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advantage of the refund. It is too salient that a levy cannot be unless it is with the authority of law and therefore, there has to be a direction to the first respondent to ensure that steps are taken to affect refund in terms of the order dated 28.02.2023 to the petitioner. The next question for consideration is the reasonable time that must be accorded to the first respondent in the circumstances of the case, and after hearing both Sri T. Suryanarayana and Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent must be allowed six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to extend the benefit of refund to the petitioner. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
