Amadeus It Group Sa (Earlier Amadeusglobal Travel Distribution Sa v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax & Ors

$~36 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 14295/2021 AMADEUS IT GROUP SA (EARLIER AMADEUSGLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA)..... PetitionerThrough: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate withMr. Neeraj Jain and Mr. Aniket D.Agrawal, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agrawal, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 15[th]December, 2021 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVING CHAWLA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): CM Appl. 45086/2021 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14295/2021 1.Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to therespondents to grant refund of taxes paid/ deposited by the petitioner for theassessment years 1996-97 to 2016-17 along with applicable interest. 2.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is aforeign company (being a non-resident incorporated under the laws ofSpain) and part of Amadeus Group of Companies, the petitioner was mergedwith Amadeus IT Holding SA with effect from 01[st]August 2016. 3.He states that the petitioner filed its return of income for theassessment year 1996-97 on 26[th]February 1999 declaring NIL income. Hefurther states that the assessing officer vide order dated 23[rd]March 1999under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the petitioner atRs.13,00,83,258/-. 4.He further states that the petitioner preferred an appeal before theFirst Appellate Authority, viz., the Commissioner of Income Tax Appealsagainst the order dated 23rd March, 1999.The Appellate Authority videorder dated 23[rd]March, 2000 upheld the findings of the assessing officerregarding permanent establishment and attribution of income to a PE. 5.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner,being aggrieved by the substantive findings of the CIT(A) upholding theassessment order, filed statutory appeal under Section 253 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal vide common orderdated 30[th]November 2007 partly allowed the appeals of the petitioner as aresult of which, the NIL income returned by the petitioner stood accepted. 6.He further states that this Court vide separate orders dated 24[th]January, 2011 dismissed both the appeals preferred by the petitioner and therevenue, thereby upholding the findings/ conclusions arrived at by theTribunal as a result of which the Nil income returned by the Petitioner stoodaffirmed which in turn makes the petitioner entitled to refund of the entire taxes deposited/ paid, along with applicable interest. 7.He further states that the petitioner as well as the Revenue arecurrently in appeal against the said order(s) of this Court before the SupremeCourt. He, however, states that the Supreme Court has not granted any stayon the operation of the order(s) of this Court. He submits that refund due tothe petitioner cannot be withheld merely on the ground that issue is pendingfinal adjudication before the Supreme Court. 8.Issue notice. 9.Mr. Sunil Agrawal, learned counsel for accepts notice on behalf of therespondents. He states that by way of the present writ petition, the petitionerseeks refund of, as many as, twenty assessment years in one go. He furtherstates that no cause of action has arisen in the recent past and therefore, thepresent writ petition is not maintainable. 7.He further states that the petitioner as well as the Revenue arecurrently in appeal against the said order(s) of this Court before the SupremeCourt. He, however, states that the Supreme Court has not granted any stayon the operation of the order(s) of this Court. He submits that refund due tothe petitioner cannot be withheld merely on the ground that issue is pendingfinal adjudication before the Supreme Court. 8.Issue notice. 9.Mr. Sunil Agrawal, learned counsel for accepts notice on behalf of therespondents. He states that by way of the present writ petition, the petitionerseeks refund of, as many as, twenty assessment years in one go. He furtherstates that no cause of action has arisen in the recent past and therefore, thepresent writ petition is not maintainable. 10.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that thepetitioner prior to the filing of the present writ petition had made a request torespondent no.1 vide application dated 5th August, 2021 requesting therebyto respondent no.1 to grant refund of income tax due for the assessmentyears 1996-97 to 2016-17. However, the said application has not beendecided till date despite various reminders. Consequently, this Court is ofthe view that the petitioner has the cause of action to maintain the presentwrit petition. 11.This Court is also of the view that Section 240 of the Act embodiesthe salutary principle of right of the assessee to receive refund of tax whichbecomes due to the assessee as a result of any order passed in appeal. 12.Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with thedirections that respondent No.1 shall process the case of the petitioner for refund of taxes paid/deposited by the petitioner for the assessment years1996-97 to 2016-17 and refund the same along with applicable interest inaccordance with law within three months. 13.It is clarified that the process of refund is subject to the order to bepassed by the Apex Court in the appeals already pending before it. ThisCourt also clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the quantum ofrefund. 14.With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J DECEMBER 15, 2021 js NAVIN CHAWLA, J