2020 (5) TMI 363 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses contempt petition due to no violation or wilful disobedience in refund claim case under Income Tax Act, 1961.

Maple Logistics Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 & Anr.

The court dismissed the contempt petition as it found no violation of its directions or wilful disobedience by the respondents in the case of ... Grant of refund - Direction to refund the amount due to the Petitioner within four weeks along with the applicable interest - HELD THAT:- Directions contained in the order dated 17th January, 2020 envisages that in case the respondents have no impediments in granting the refund, the same may be refunded. In the absence of specific directions contained in the aforesaid order with regard to income refund under the Income Tax Act, 1961, we do not see any violation of the directions of this Court much less any wilful disobedience by the respondents of the said order dated 17th January, 2020. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the refund claim of the petitioner has been processed and the same will be credited in the beneficiary account within a week. Statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding processing of refund, this contempt petition is dismissed. Issues: Contempt proceedings for non-compliance of interim order regarding refund claim under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. The petition was filed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the interim order dated 17th January, 2020, which directed the refund of the petitioner's amount along with applicable interest within four weeks unless a reply was filed. The court noted that the order did not contain specific directions regarding income refund under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the court did not find any violation of its directions or wilful disobedience by the respondents.2. After hearing both parties, it was observed that the directions in the order were clear that if there were no impediments in granting the refund, it should be refunded. The court acknowledged the respondent's submission that the refund claim had been processed and would be credited to the beneficiary account within a week. Based on this information and the lack of evidence of wilful disobedience, the court dismissed the contempt petition.In conclusion, the court found no violation of its directions or wilful disobedience by the respondents in the case of non-compliance with the interim order related to the refund claim under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court dismissed the contempt petition after considering the respondent's submission that the refund claim had been processed and would be credited to the beneficiary account within a week.