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. ... Refund due to the petitioner along with interest u/s 244A(1) and 244A(1A) - During the pendency of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have credited a partial sum [Rs. 54,13,466/-] and a further sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- has to be paid - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has got substantial relief during the pendency of the present writ petition. Whether the petitioner is entitled for further amount or not cannot be decided straight away in this writ petition. Under these circumstances, Court is inclined to dispose this writ petition by directing the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the first respondent giving all the particulars of the amounts that are yet to be paid by them. The representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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.