9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ha Parekh & Mr Dashang Doshi, i/b, Dewani Associates,. For the Respondent: Mr Suresh Kumar,. ORAL JUDGMENT PER (JITENDRA JAIN, J) 1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed protesting against the adjustment of refund by the Respondent for assessment year 2014-15 agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2014-15. This appeal order resulted into refund for assessment year 2014-15. The Petitioner received partial refund of Rs. 12,61,620/- on 23 October 2020. Upon enquiry, the Petitioner was informed that the balance refund has been adjusted against the demand for assessment year 2016-17. It is in this backdrop that the present proceedings has filed challenging the said adjustment. 5. Mr Gup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en dealt with in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra Vs Centralised Processing Center & Ors WP/13185/2024 dated 24 February 2025. He therefore prayed that the adjustment of refund was contrary to the decision of this Court and the CBDT Circular. 6. Mr Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent, supported the action of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is contrary to their own Circular and the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Ganatra (supra). The Petitioner has raised this very specific ground in his reply to the proceedings under Section 245 of the Act and same has not been controverted. In our view, since the appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is pending and the Petitioner has made payment of 20%, the reasoning given by the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
