2023 (11) TMI 341 - HC - Income Tax

Refund Petition Dismissed; Court Directs New Representation for Additional Tax Claim of Rs. 7,00,000 for 1990-1991.

The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 1990-1991. ... Mandamus - refund of tax - interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) - representation and fresh consideration - administrative disposal within prescribed timeRefund of tax - interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) - Entitlement of the petitioner to further refund and interest for the Assessment Year 1990-1991 - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that a sum had been credited to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition but the petitioner asserted that an additional sum remained payable. The Court declined to adjudicate entitlement to the further amount or interest in the writ petition itself, noting that the question could not be decided straight away and required fresh consideration by the income tax authority. [Paras 3, 4, 7]Petitioner's claim to the further amount and interest is not finally decided on merits and is left for fresh consideration by the tax authority.Mandamus - representation and fresh consideration - administrative disposal within prescribed time - Procedural direction for filing a fresh representation and timeline for disposal - HELD THAT: - In view of the unresolved claim, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent specifying the particulars of the amounts claimed. The Court prescribed that the representation be furnished within thirty days from receipt of the order and that the first respondent dispose of the representation within thirty days thereafter. The order thereby provides a mandatory administrative route for adjudication of the outstanding claim. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]Petitioner to file fresh representation within thirty days; first respondent to dispose of it within thirty days thereafter; writ petition dismissed.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed after recording that a partial refund was credited; the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation regarding the remaining claim for Assessment Year 1990-1991, and the income tax authority is directed to dispose of that representation within the prescribed thirty-day timeline. Issues Involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the entitlement of the petitioner to a refund under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1990-1991, and the decision on further payment due to the petitioner.Entitlement to Refund under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A): The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue the refund due to the petitioner in PAN : AACFN7700N for the Assessment Year 1990-1991 under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was noted that during the pendency of the petition, a sum of Rs. 54,13,466/- was credited to the petitioner by the respondents. However, the petitioner claimed that an additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was still outstanding and had not been paid by the respondents. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had received substantial relief during the pendency of the petition but held that the decision on whether the petitioner was entitled to the further amount could not be made immediately. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent detailing the outstanding amounts within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The first respondent was instructed to dispose of the representation within thirty days thereafter. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.Decision on Further Payment: The Court, after considering the submissions from both the petitioner's counsel and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, decided that the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a further amount could not be conclusively determined in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to provide a fresh representation to the first respondent specifying the outstanding amounts for further consideration and disposal within a specified timeframe.