2019 (5) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m Walve, Advocate for Respondent. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the Petition. Petitioner's grievance is that a refund of Rs. 21,45,54,980/payable to the Petitioner is not released by the Income Tax Department. This refund is admittedly payable to the Petitioner and it arises in the factual background which can be gathered from the communication issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for AY 2013-14 to AY 2016-17. Subsequently, the demand for AY 2013-14 to AY 2016-17 was again deleted by CIT (A)10, Pune. The order is received in month of March, 2019 and appeal effect was given on 28/03/2019." 2. However, from the same communication we gather that the Assessing Officer was unable to issue the refund on account of error of Rs. 20,02,034/in the system of the departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the above mentioned payment in New TAN (i.e. PNEB01584C) as well. On account of the above inadvertent error and duplication of the entry towards payments made to HSCB, default demand for short payment of tax at source is reported against the new TAN of the Company. I have verified the details / documents submitted by the Company in this regard and have found the same to be in order. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has not taken steps to delete the demand. As a result of which, the Petitioner's sizable tax refund in access of Rs. 21 Crores is held up.   4. Facts being clear, in our opinion, the department cannot withhold the refund of the Petitioner. Firstly, the computer system cannot override the factual aspects. If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no conse....