Court rules in favor of Petitioner in tax refund name dispute, deems notice invalid. Assessing Officers urged to verify info.

The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner in a case concerning a dispute over the name in which a tax refund should be issued. The court found that the Petitioner's name in the tax return matched the correct name at the time of filing, despite a name change, and deemed the notice issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969 invalid. The court emphasized the need for Assessing Officers to verify information before issuing notices to avoid delays and inefficiencies. The Respondent was directed to process the Petitioner's returns without considering any defects by a specified date.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over the name in which the refund should be issued.
2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969.

Issue 1: Dispute over the name in which the refund should be issued

The judgment addresses the issue of whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund and in whose name the refund should be issued. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner should have filed revised returns after a change of name to be eligible for a refund. The Petitioner had changed its name from Acute Realty Private Limited to Acute Retail Infra Private Limited and received a certificate of incorporation reflecting this change. Despite the name change being updated in the records of the Income Tax Department, the Petitioner received a notice stating the name in the return did not match the PAN database. The court found that the Petitioner's name in the return matched the correct name as it existed at the time of filing, and the notice issued was invalid. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have checked the database before issuing the notice to avoid wasting time.

Issue 2: Validity of the notice under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969

The court examined the validity of the notice issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1969. It was observed that the Petitioner had filed its return of income with the correct name after a change, which was duly updated in the PAN database. Despite this, the Petitioner received a notice stating a mismatch in the name and was advised to correct it as per the PAN allotted. The court held that the notice was unjustified as the Petitioner's name in the return matched the correct name at the time of filing. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice dated 9th February, 2019. The Respondent was directed to process the Petitioner's returns without considering any defect by a specified date in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the dispute over the name in which the refund should be issued and declared the notice under Section 139(9) invalid. The court emphasized the importance of verifying information before issuing notices to prevent unnecessary delays and wastage of resources.

---