Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited v. Income-Tax Officer And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH. 126. CWP No.469 of 2022Date of decision: 01.02.2022 Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Private Limited .... Petitione Versus Income-tax Officer and another .... Respondent CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOHON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. MADAAN (Through video conferencing) Present : Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.REE MLS. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J. (oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Heard counsel for the parties. It 1s the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made the following representations seeking refund of excess.pre-paid taxes along with statutory interest under Section 244 A of the |Income Tax Act, 1961 arising pursuant to assessment orders under Section143(3) of the said Act for the assessment year 2013-2014 and assessmentyear 2010-2011. | CWP No.469 of 2()2) -). It 1s contended that none of these representations have beendisposed of by respondent No.1 and the inaction has caused serious prejudice.to the petitioner. Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, oninstructions, states that respondent No.1 will take an appropriate decision, asper law, on the said representations within a period of 4 weeks andcommunicate his decision to the petitioner. © Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction torespondent No.1 to take a decision on the refund of excess pre-paid taxes.along with statutory interest to the petitioner for the said assessment yearsmade pursuant to the said representations made by the petitioner, within aperiod of 4 weeks and communicate his decision to the petitioner. | (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAQ) |JUDGE) (HARMINDER SINGH MADAAN)JUDGE February 01, 2022Hemlata/Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/NoWhether reportable : Yes/No