Wp/4018/2023 Of M/S Bangalore Housing Development And Investments v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signedby RENUKAMBAK GLocation: HighCourt ofKarnataka NC: 2023:KHC:26170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV -WRIT PETITION NO. 4018 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S BANGALORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. SALIM JAHANGEER KIRMANI, S/O. SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH KIRMANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANNAMALAI, ADVOATE, FOR SRI. MADHUSUDHAN U A., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6 BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE A REFUND OF RS.2,05,44,768/- WHICH IS DUE TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AS PER THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS ACT, 2020 F.NO.OGE/VSVS/DCIT-C1(1)(1)/2021-22/3 DATED 20.01.2022 HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to issue a refund of Rs.2,05,44,768/-, which has been ordered as regards Assessment Year 2015-16, after giving effect to the acceptance of petitioner’s application under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. 2. The petitioner submits that, the respondent authorities, despite orders being passed on 20.01.2022, have not taken steps to process the refund and accordingly, sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 3. Mr. Sushal Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, if four week’s time is granted, request for issuance of refund would be considered and appropriate action will be taken. 4. In light of the said stand, the matter does not require any further adjudication. The Assessing Officer of CPC Branch of the respondent, who is the authority concerned for refund, are required to take appropriate steps. 5. In light of the said stand by the counsel for the Revenue undertaking to dispose off the request of refund appropriately, four weeks time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to dispose appropriately. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. 6. It is needless to state that, in light of the said stand of the revenue, no fresh contentions to be taken while considering the grant of refund. Sd/- JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22