TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... with Ms. Soumya Singh & Mr. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh & Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Mr. Gaurav Kumar & Mr. Prateek Bhati, Advs. along with Ms. Sanjula Halder, DCIT, Circle 78(1). JUDGMENT PER DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present petitions preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/assessee has sought directions to the respondent/Department to issue pending refunds along with applicable interest under Section 244A(1) & 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') pertaining to Assessment Years 2003-04, 2008-09 to 2013-14 citin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue appeals) Order dated 15.05.2026 at Pg. 15 of Counter Rs. 34,45,69,250 Not filed N.A. 4. Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's appeals were allowed by the Tribunal vide orders dated 30.04.2024 (AY 2013-14), 05.06.2024 (AY 2012-13), 26.11.2024 & 03.02.2025 (AYs 2003-04, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12). In furtherance thereof, the AO passed orders giving appeal effect of such orders on 30.10.2024, 14.10.2024 and 15.05.2026 and had found a total sum of Rs. 53,09,56,470/- payable to the petitioner and in spite of this, when it came to making payment of the amount, the respondents insisted upon filing of Form 26B. He added that though the petitioner was of the view th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the petitioner is in dire need of cash, because of the capital intensive nature of the business; he raised a grievance that it is because of the approach of the respondents that a huge amount which the petitioner has deducted, is lying with the respondents and in spite of various orders by the Authorities, it is not getting refund. He submitted that the petitioner had to file writ petitions in different High Courts and even before this Court. 10. Mr. Jolly, learned senior counsel argued that the respondents' action of insisting upon the petitioner to furnish Form 26B is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He took the Court through scheme of Sections 200A and 201 of the Act of 1961 and highlighted that Section 200A of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sked to furnish Form 26B. He invited Court's attention towards the Standard Operating Procedure dated 23.03.2023 issued by the Centralized Processing Cell (TDS) (hereinafter referred to as 'SOP'), more particularly, towards clause (v) of paragraph no. 2.1.2, to contend that since there is an outstanding demand against sister associated TANs of the deductor/assessee, the request of refund could not be approved. 13. He submitted that the respondent no.1/AO, feeling bound by the SOP and the stipulations made thereunder, did not process petitioner's request, though she tried to get clarifications from higher officers. He submitted that since there has been an outstanding demand of about Rs.10 crores, the respondent no.1/AO was justified in n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to the petitioner for AYs 2003-04, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is still lying with the Department after 10 years of legal battle which it had won before the Tribunal in June 2024. The petitioner's plight does not end here. After having won the legal battle before the Tribunal, though the AO found an amount of Rs. 53,09,56,470/- refundable to the petitioner in October 2024 & May 2026 but has still not remitted the amount. This time the AO took refuge of Form 26B and purported outstanding demand of petitioner's sister TANs to the tune of Rs. 10,91,08,277/-. 17. Having gone through the scheme of the Act of 1961, more particularly, Sections 200A and 201 of the Act of 1961, Rule 31A of the Rules of 1962 and Fo....