Petitio v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And.anr.wsseess:kespondents

249IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATHAN DIGARH CWP,4195,2016Date ofDecision: 16.03.2016 STATE BANK OF PATIALA | _..... Petitio VS. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND.ANR.wsseess:kESpONdentS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG. Present:Mr. sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate,tor the petitioner.tor the petitioner. Mr. Z.5. Klar, Advocate,for the respondents.for the respondents. RRS This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.4195 and 4228 of2016 both filed by State Bank of Patiala, as according to thelearned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein isidentical. However, the brief facts necessary for adjudication arebeing extracted from CWP No. 41995 of 2016. 2The petitioner has approached this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India of India, seeking quashingof intimation dated 20.01.2016)(Annexure P-4)regarding setting|off refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shortthe Act) and order dated 15.02.2016(Annexure P-7)passed undersection 220(38)/220(6) of the Act. The challenge has also beenmade to the order dated 18.02.2016|(Annexure P-10)passed in 2 pursuance of the aforesaid intimation by the respondent No. 2. Awrit of Mandamus has also been sought to adjust the amount ofrefund payable to the petitioner tor the Assessment Years2002-03 to 2007-08 against the demand created for theAssessment Year 2013-14. 3.Notice of motion was issued in the aforesaid petitionfor today. Mr. Z.s. Klar, Advocate, representing the respondentRevenue Department, has produced letter dated 04.03.2016issued by Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle Patiala,adjusting the amount of refund arising for the assessment years2002-03 to 2007-08 against the penalty demand in assessmentyears 2008-09 and 2010-11. The said letter is taken on record,subject to all just exceptions. — 4On the other hand, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that a detailed representation dated07.03.2016 was submitted before respondent No. 2, which is stillpending, pointing out that the adjustment so made by theRevenue Department is against the instructions F.No.404/712/93ITCC dated 29.02.2016 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi.Accordingly, a prayer was made to issue adirection.To|respondent No. 2 to decide the representation expeditiously. 5)Aiter hearing the learned counsel for the parties,while disposing of the writ petitions, we direct respondent No. 2to take a decision on the representation dated 07.03.2016produced by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today 3 which is taken on record as Annexure P-1lwithin three weeksirom the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passingspeaking order aiter affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner 1n accordance with law. Needless to say that till thedecision on the aforesaid representation, no coercive measuresshall be taken by respondent No 2, for the recovery of amountirom the petitioner. March 16, 2016Suresh Kumar | AJAY KUMAR MITTAL]JUDGE [| RAJ RAHUL GARG]JUDGE