2018 (9) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2nd respondent giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal or in the alternative direct the respondents to set off/adjust the refund of Rs. 110,52,145/- due to the petitioner against the outstanding demands for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 payable by the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Income-Tax Officer (TDS-LTU) passed orders under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short) deeming the petitioner as an 'assessee-in-default' for non-deduction of tax at source in respect of 'provisions for expenses'. The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the order dated 28.3.2011 holding the petitioner to be an assessee-in-default. On 23.6.201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 22.9.2017, determining the refunds due to the petitioner. The total refund due to the petitioner, as determined under the said orders was Rs. 110,52,45,145/-. In January-2018 the petitioner attempted to obtain refund of the above amount of Rs. 110,52,45,145/- on TDS Reconciliation, Analysis and Correction Enabling System ('TRACES'), an online portal under the control and supervision of the 1st respondent. However, the petitioner encountered difficulties in getting its refunds processed online. Meanwhile, demands were raised on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent in the assessment concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14, which were outstanding to some extent. On 12.1.2018 the petitioner ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent exercising the powers under Section 143(3) of the Act raised demands on the petitioner for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14, which were outstanding to some extent. Inspite of the repeated requests made, the respondents have not refunded the amount due to the petitioner or adjusted the said amount against the outstanding demands for the subsequent years, in terms of provisions of the Act. Therefore he submits that the writ petitions have to be allowed directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith refund the amount due to the petitioner pursuant to the orders dated 22.12.2017 passed by Respondent No.2 or in the alternative direct the respondents to adjust the refund amount due to the petitioner against the outstanding dem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount due to it or adjust the refund due towards outstanding demand raised under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act for the subsequent years. Inspite of the repeated demands made, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action to refund an amount of Rs. 110,52,45,145/- due to the petitioner or adjust the refund due towards the outstanding demand raised. The authorities ought to have refunded the amount due to the petitioner in terms of the orders dated 22.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent or adjusted the refund due to the petitioner against the outstanding demands for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14. The same has not been done in the present case. 10. The provisions of Section 245 of the Act clearly depicts that ....