Wp/2144/2018 Of Hdfc Bank Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2(3)(1) And 2 Ors

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2018 HDFC Bank Limited … Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)(1) and ors.… Respondents --- Mr.J.Mistri, Senior counsel with Mr.Atual Jasani for thePetitioner.Mr.P.C.Chhotaray for the Respondents. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2018. P.C.:- 1.The Petition is filed by the HDFC bank Limited, a bankingcompany. When the Petition was filed, the bank's refund for theassessment year 2010-11 was adjusted in part against thealleged tax dues of the bank principally for the assessment years2008-09 and 2012-13. The bank pointed out to the CompetentAuthority that High Court by an order dated 26[th] April, 2018 hasstayed the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. A fewmonths later the adjustment of dues for the assessment year2008-09 came to be dropped by the Authority. With respect of Priya Soparkar 28 wp 2144-18-o assessment year 2012-13, case of the Petitioner was that theCommissioner(Appeals) had already granted substantial reliefs tothe Petitioner and therefore, tax demand for the said yearwould not survive. The Assessing Officer gave effect to theappellate order of the Commissioner after a long time. Pursuantto such order, even the demand for the assessment year 2012-13which was sought to be adjusted against the Petitioner's refundcame to be wiped out. Consequentially, the Petitioner's maingrievance raised in the Petition no longer survives. Learnedcounsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that the authoritieshave taken unduly long time to correct the position. 2.We are conscious that the Revenue Authorities are underconsiderable pressure of work and time limits staring at theface. We also understand that the Government machinery andthe Government Officers need to be cautious when the questionof large amount of refund arises. Internal checks and verificationsmust be unbuilt in the system. Nevertheless we do expect thatthe Officers do not act insensitively and without justifiablereasons delay the refunds giving rise to dissatisfaction and at Priya Soparkar times need less litigation. 3.In the affidavit-in-reply dated 3[rd] August 2018, the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax has in addition to explaining thereason for some delay in correcting position vis-a-vis theassessment year 2008-09 has tendered apology to the Court andalso to the Petitioner. We, therefore, close the issue without anyfurther order or observations. Petition disposed of accordingly. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….