TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), along with the notice dated 30th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the relevant Assessment Year ("A.Y.") 2016-17; (b) The inordinate delay in disposing the appeal filed by the Petitioner before Respondent No. 4 [Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)] ("CIT (A)"); (c) The action of Respondent No. 5 in adjusting the refunds of A.Y. 2025-26 against the impugned demand raised for the relevant A.Y. 2016-17, despite the Petitioner having already pre-deposited 20% of the impugned demand. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted the following factual matrix of the case: 3.1 The Petitioner is a senior citizen aged 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pated in the re-assessment proceedings and submitted explanations / objections / documentary evidences. 3.6 Eventually, on 31st May 2023 the order of re-assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B [Exhibit H1] was passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. An aggregate addition of Rs. 57,14,827/- was made and a demand of Rs. 30,80,608/- was raised vide notice issued under Section 156 [Exhibit H2]. 3.7 The Petitioner then filed an appeal before Respondent No. 4 [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)] on 29th June 2023 [Exhibit I]. The Petitioner raised several jurisdictional grounds as under: (a) That the re-assessment proceedings were bad in law because the required approval/sanction und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 [Exhibit L3] and 7th August 2026 [Exhibit L4]. In his submission dated 7th August 2026, the Petitioner specifically brought to the notice of Respondent No. 4, the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Gupta (P.) Family Trust vs. Income-tax Officer [2026] 185 taxmann.com 239 (Bombay) dated 23rd March 2026, wherein it was held that, where for A.Y. 2016-17 [which is also the Assessment Year impugned in the present case] approval was obtained from the PCIT (even when the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year) instead of the PCCIT, the entire re-assessment proceedings stand vitiated. 3.10. In the meanwhile, on 17th March 2026, Respondent No. 5 adjusted the refund of Rs. 5,76,140....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he pending appeal expeditiously. 4.3 That the recovery of tax made in the form of adjustment of refunds for A.Y. 2025-26 against the impugned demand of A.Y. 2016-17 be considered illegal, as such recovery is contrary to the binding instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC] dated 31st July 2017, read with Office Memorandum [F.No.404/72/93-ITCC] dated 29th February 2016. The said Office Memorandum states that, when an appeal is pending before the CIT (A) and the Assessee has deposited 20% of the impugned demand, then a stay on recovery of the balance demand can be granted. Accordingly, the excess recovery made by Respondents be refunded with the applicable interest. 5. Ms. Omle, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in any event, within a period of 12 weeks from the date on which this order is brought to the attention of Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner shall file a copy of this order with its Jurisdictional Officer, namely, Respondent No. 1, who shall thereafter intimate Respondent No. 4 of this order. 8. Respondent No. 5 shall refund the amounts that have been adjusted against the demand raised for A.Y. 2016-17, in excess of the 20% pre-deposit already made by the Petitioner. The amounts adjusted under Section 245 against the demand for A.Y. 2016-17 shall be calculated by Respondent No. 1 and thereafter payment shall be made by Respondent No. 5. It is needless to clarify that interest on the aforesaid refund will also be calculated as per law. ....