TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the refund request made by the petitioner for the assessment years granted/sanction refund in favour of the petitioner for the assessment year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Subsequently, insofar as assessment years 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 are concerned, the respondents who passed assessment orders against the petitioner raising demands which were challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority by depositing 20% of the disputed tax pursuant to the assessment order. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with applicable interest; (ii) Directing the 1st/2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it for the assessment year 2012-13 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bengaluru-1/10224/2015-16 (old appeal No.9/10002/2017-18 (Manual Appeal Register No.:40/BU/2015-16)) (Annexure0B dated 29.04.2015 in a time bound manner, expeditiously; (iii) Directing the Respondents not to enforce the balance demand raised vide demand notice dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A2) until disposal of the appeal by the 1st / 2nd Respondent and for a period of three weeks thereafter; and (iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n excess of 20% and for direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pan Synthetics Private Limited and Centralized Processing Centre and others -W.P.No.9835/2024 dated 23.07.2024 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No. 1 would take up the appeals and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 6. A perusal of the material available on record will indicate that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that for the assessment year 2016-17, the third respondent has passed an assessment order and raised a demand on 26.05.2023, and for the assessment year 2015-16, the third respondent has passed an assessment order and raised the demand on 30.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved by such orders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the petitioner had filed an application seeking for stay of the demand for the assessment year 2015-16 as per Annexure-M and similar application was filed seeking stay of demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 at Annexure-N. Petitioner submits that in terms of Annexure-P as against outstanding demand noticing that refund was granted upon processing the return for the assessment year 2023-24 and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016-17 as already been adjusted. Such refund to be made within a period of eight weeks from today. 8. Accordingly the petition is disposed off. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were clearly not justified in adjusting the refund amounts payable to the petitioner in excess of 20% and consequently, necessary directions have to be issued to the respondents to refund the entire amounts payable to the petitioner in excess of 20% of the demand for the assessment year 2012-13 within a stipulated time frame and by directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the appeals within a stipulated time frame. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER....