TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondents to issue refund of Rs. 9,30,46,736/- as computed under Refund Intimation dated 22.09.2022 bearing DIN: CPC/2122/A6/243697378 [Annexure A] along with applicable interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the IT Act'] in an expeditious and timely manner. Sri. Tarun Gulati, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Y.V. Raviraj, the learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents, are heard. 2. The petitioner, for the Assessment Year 2021-22 is informed about the computed refund in a sum of Rs. 31,94,20,940/- [including the principal amount in a sum of Rs. 29,35,11,360/-], and this computation is as of 22.09.2022. On 16.05.2023, the third respondent [the jurisdictional Additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.1 that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ReAc (AU)-1(2)(1), without recording an opinion on whether grant of refund would likely affect the revenue adversely as is required under the provisions of Section 241A of the IT Act, has stated that because scrutiny assessment is pending with the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO], the refund may be withheld, 4.2 that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ReAc (AU)-1(2)(1), in the Communication dated 20.12.2022, has referred to eleven different instances, including the petitioner's instance citing the same reason and this indicates lack of application of mind. 4.3 that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (AU)-1, without even observing that the Assistant Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Income Tax, must record an opinion that grant of refund would in all likelihood affect the revenue adversely and such opinion must be supported by cogent reasons. 6. Sri. Y.V. Raviraj submits that the petitioner cannot dispute that if there is a reference to the TPO to examine the transfer pricing and the investigation is on, that there is every likelihood that the withholding of refund would be justified, and in any event, the assessment would be considered expeditiously and the permissible refund would be allowed. 7. The rival submissions are considered in the light of the law as exposited in Ericsson India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax supra. The material part of the provisions of Section 241A of the IT Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, which stipulate that the Assessing Officer, having regard to the fact that notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 143, must record in writing an opinion with reasons on how the revenue's interest would be adversely affected if refund is allowed. The withholding of the refund in the manner as now considered by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ReAC (AU)-1(2)(1), Surat cannot be accepted, and there must be interference by this Court. 9. This Court must record that it is undisputed that the petitioner has claimed refund for the Assessment Years prior to the Assessment Year 2021-22. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (AU)-1 has granted approval recording the details of the carry forward losses for the cor....