Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocates. Maity, Advocates v. Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1) Delhi

$~3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 6399/2025 LEELA BIHARI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Monalisa LEELA BIHARI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Monalisa Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocates. Maity, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(1) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC; Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC; Mr. Parth Samwal, JSC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates for Revenue. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC; Mr. Parth Samwal, JSC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates for Revenue. % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R29.05.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a. To admit the writ petition on merits as this Hon’ble Court has full jurisdiction to hear the same. b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the Respondents to process and pay the refund amounting to Rs. 23,26,610/- for the A.Y. 2023- 24alongwith the applicable interest under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Petitioner.” 2.The petitioner states that the refund amount due in respect of Assessment Year 2023-24 had been adjusted against demand relating to AY 2012-13, however, the said demand never existed as the dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme , 2020. The said adjustment had taken place after the dispute relating to AY 2012-13 was fully settled and a final certificate dated 19.01.2024 had been issued by the designated authority. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute that the adjustment of the demand was erroneous. He, however, states that there is no functionality in the system to process the refund and, therefore, the same would require to be done manually, if directions to the said effect are issued. He also submits that the same may take about ten weeks. 4.In view of the above, we dispose of the present petition by directing the Revenue to manually process the petitioner’s claim for refund alongwith interest within a period of ten weeks from date. 5. We clarify that the petitioner would also be paid interest in accordance with law, on the footing that the refund had not been adjusted. 6.We also grant liberty to the petitioner to revive the present petition, if the cause so arises. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 29, 2025/sms TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any