TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n lieu of a demand raised for the Assessment Year ["AY"] 1997-98. 2. The facts of the case show that the petitioner is a Non-Banking Financial Company, primarily engaged in facilitating finance to industry, trade etc. via lease, loans and hire purchase. On 31 August 1998, the petitioner filed its revised return of income ["ITR"] for AY 1997-98 declaring its total income to be Rs. 83,019,180/-. However, vide assessment order dated 28 February 2000, passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer ["AO"] at the relevant time in Mumbai, total income of the petitioner was determined to be Rs. 10,91,70,520/-. Pursuant to the said assessment order, a demand of Rs. 1,76,15,415 was raised, which was paid by the petitioner under protest. 3. Thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that the respondents have failed to comply with the orders passed by the ITAT. He submits that when the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -12 (1), New Delhi issued letters to the AO at Mumbai seeking verification of refund in question, the latter clarified vide letter dated 31 December 2013 that due to non-availability of relevant records, the requisite verification qua the issuance of refund for AY 1997-98 could not be carried out. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also wrote a letter dated 20 June 2014 to respondent no.1 regarding release of refunds in light of the change in jurisdiction, but to no avail. He submits that due to inaction of the respondents despite subsequent reminder letters dated 18 Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... true, the admitted negligence by the petitioner in not pursuing the refund of the concerned amount for an unreasonably long duration precludes it to claim the said amount at this stage, particularly in absence of the relevant records. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the ITAT order dated 16 January 2013 does not deal with any discussion to establish the bona fide of the claim sought by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot be made liable to pay such untenable, unverified and delayed claims. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Harbux Singh Sidhu v. Department of Income-tax [2021 SCC On Line Del 3764], to substantiate his arguments. 11. We have heard the learned coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e taken away on the ground that government authorities cannot verify their own records for issuing a refund. In the absence of any fault being attributed to the assessee, the lack of verification by the respondents of their own records, cannot be a ground to deny the refund. 15. At this juncture, it is also apposite to refer to Article 265 of the Constitution which eschews any illegal collection of taxes in any form at the behest of the State. The State is entrusted with dealing of public money and engaged in a fiduciary relationship with the common citizen. It cannot be unjustly enriched at the cost of the citizens. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. State of M.P. [(2015) 11 ....