TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied by order dated 28th May, 2020. In prayer clause (b) of the petition, the petitioner seeks admitted refund of Rs. 833,04,88,000/- in accordance with the rectification/section 245 order dated 28th May, 2020. The petitioner had filed its return of income on 30th September, 2014 in the name of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. The said income tax return was revised on 31st March, 2016 and further revised on 22nd February, 2017. On 31st October, 2019, the respondent No.1 passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w. Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act") determining the refund of Rs. 733,80,83,366/- payable to the petitioner on 7th November, 2019. 5. The petitioner filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking rectification of certain mistakes apparent from the record according to the petitioner. The petitioner filed another rectification application with the respondent No.1 on 3rd December, 2019 in view of the case of petitioner having been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai by order under Section 162 of the Act. Since the respondents did not grant any refund in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-19. By the said intimation, the respondents proposed to set off the outstanding demand against the refund for the assessment year 2014-2015 arrived in case of the petitioner formerly known as Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. The petitioner was directed to inform the respondents in case of any of those demands mentioned in the said notice was stayed by any Court. 9. The said intimation under Section 245 of the Act was strongly objected by the petitioner by email dated 13th May, 2020 on various grounds. The petitioner also brought on record the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07 and pendency of various Stay Applications filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended in the said reply that the refund due for assessment year 2014-15 could not be adjusted against outstanding demand for the assessment year 2012-2013 and for various other assessment years on various grounds. On 19th May, 2020, the petitioner filed additional response to the intimation under Section 245 of the Act and strongly raised the objection to the said action on the part of the respondent no.1. 10. On 28th May, 2020, the respondent No.1 passed an order unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon order disposing off all the applications for rectification filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Act and also the notices issued by the respondents under Section 245 of the Act seeking adjustment of the alleged outstanding dues of the petitioner against the amount of refund due to the petitioner. He submits that even according to the respondents, after adjusting the demand of the respondents against the petitioner, the net refundable amount payable to the petitioner as Rs. 833,04,88,000/-. 14. Learned senior counsel submits that at the first instance the respondents could not have adjusted even the sum of Rs. 176,3900,637/- against the amount of Rs. 1009,43,88,637/- found refundable to the petitioner under the said order. In his alternate submission, he submits that in any event the respondents could not have withheld the said net refundable amount Rs. 833,04,88,000/. The learned senior counsel accordingly presses an interim relief for admitted refundable amount of Rs. 833,04,88,000/-. 15. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that once respondent No.1 having exercised power under Section 245 of the Act and holding that the amount of Rs. 176,3900,637/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that action of the respondents to withhold the refund under Section 241A is justified in view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 29th April, 2020. 19. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. V/ s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 347 ITR 43 (Delhi) and more particularly, paragraph Nos. 17 and 25 in support of his submission that the respondents were justified in withholding the refund due to the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 by invoking section 241-A of the Act. 20. Mr. Mistri learned senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder distinguished the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra). He submits that in the facts of that case, Delhi High Court has held that the conduct and action of respondent-Revenue in recovering the disputed tax in respect of additions to the extent of Rs. 96 Crores on the issues which were already covered against them by the earlier orders of the ITAT or CIT(Appeals) was unjust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders. In our view, there is no such power vested in the respondents to adjust the admitted refund amount against the tax dues which are not even adjudicated upon by the respondents and may arise in future as contemplated/visualized by the respondents. 24. Insofar as the provisions of Section 241A of the Act pressed in service by the respondents and that also only in the affidavit-in-reply for the first time is concerned, it would be appropriate to quote the said Section to appreciate the submission made by the respondents. Section 241A of the Income Tax, 1961 reads thus:- 241A. For every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017, where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under the provisions of sub-section(1) of section 143 and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion, having regard to the fact that a notice has been issued under sub-section(2) of section 143 in respect of such return, that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and with the pre....