2025 (4) TMI 1242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a, with Mr Sumit Khanna, Ms Samiksha Parekh & Mr Dashang Doshi, i/b, Dewani Associates,. For the Respondent: Mr Suresh Kumar,. ORAL JUDGMENT   PER (JITENDRA JAIN, J) 1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed protesting against the adjustment of refund by the Resp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for the said assessment year i.e., assessment year 2014-15. This appeal order resulted into refund for assessment year 2014-15. The Petitioner received partial refund of Rs. 12,61,620/- on 23 October 2020. Upon enquiry, the Petitioner was informed that the balance refund has been adjusted against the demand for assessment year 2016-17. It is in this backdrop that the present proceedings has file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 245 of the Act but the same has not been dealt with in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra Vs Centralised Processing Center & Ors WP/13185/2024 dated 24 February 2025. He therefore prayed that the adjustment of refund was contrary to the decision of this Court and the CBDT Circular. 6. Mr Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... already paid 20% of the demand was not justified. This is contrary to their own Circular and the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Ganatra (supra). The Petitioner has raised this very specific ground in his reply to the proceedings under Section 245 of the Act and same has not been controverted. In our view, since the appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is pending and the Petitioner has....