2025 (11) TMI 1909

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, in the said order, has upheld the view of the Assessing Officer that the delay in refund processing occurred due to the petitioner not furnishing the original advance tax challans, and therefore, the period of delay so attributable to petitioner shall be excluded from the period for which interest was payable. 3. The facts of the case are this. The Petitioner filed its return of income A.Y.2001-2002 on 31st October 2001 declaring a loss of Rs. 1826, 29,23,360/-. The Petitioner received a notice on 24th January 2002 under Section 142(1) of the Act requiring Petitioner to furnish a return of income for A.Y. 2001-2002 on or before 6th February 2002. The Petitioner replied to this vide its letter dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and for grant of refund of TDS of Rs. 44,611/- together with interest thereon. 7. On 14th September 2004, the impugned order was passed on the grounds that because Petitioner did not file the original receipts of the advance tax challan for payment of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- and as these were submitted only on 19th February 2002, interest was not payable for the period 1st April 2001 to 28th February 2002. Further, since no claim of TDS was made in the return of income and no TDS certificates were attached, the claim was rightly disallowed. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 8. Under Section 237 of the Act, if any person satisfies the Assessing Officer that the amount of tax paid by him or on his behalf, or t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....e. Petitioner. In any event, there is no finding either by the Assessing Officer or Respondent No. 1 that there was a delay and how the Petitioner was responsible for that delay. 10. We must also mention that in identical facts a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of V.N. Parekh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. K. Gupta [W.P. No.3460 of 2004 decided on 10/01/2021] has, inter alia, held that the aforesaid delay cannot be attributable to the Assessee. We fully agree with this decision. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the above Petition, in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read as under: "(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari....