+ W.p.(C) 1106/2025 And Cm Appl. 5467/2025 Brinda Arenja v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central

$~7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 1106/2025 and CM APPL. 5467/2025BRINDA ARENJA.....PetitionerBRINDA ARENJA.....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through:Mr Satyen Sethi, Advocate. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -18 & ANR. .....Respondents Through:Mr Vipul Agrawal with Ms Sakshiand Mr Akshat, Singh, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R %21.03.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(i) A Writ of Mandamus or Writ, Order or Direction in thenature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order orDirection under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India,directing Respondents particularly Respondent No.l to issuerefund of Rs. 11,09,568/-, for the assessment year 1997-98 withup-to date interest under section 240 read with Section 244A ofthe Act.” 2.The petitioner had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 1997-98 on 27.06.1997. The learned Assessing Officer duringthe assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]making an addition of ₹46,34,410/- under Section 69 of the Act on account of difference in the value of the cost of acquisition of an immovableproperty and its fair market value. 3.The petitioner had successfully appealed the said decision before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and by an order dated04.09.2000, the learned CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order dated31.03.2000 and remanded the matter to the AO to decide afresh. Pursuant tothe said order, the AO had once again framed an assessment making anaddition of ₹46,34,410/-. In view of the above, the petitioner had made a deposit of ₹5,15,082/- during the period 03.07.2002 to 17.02.2004. The petitioner also appealed the assessment order before the learned CIT(A)which was partly allowed by an order dated 27.02.2003.The Revenueappealed the said decision of the learned CIT(A) before the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed by an order dated27.10.2005. 4.The Revenue filed the appeal against the said order passed by thelearned ITAT before the Allahabad High Court which too was dismissed byan order dated 06.01.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the AO togive effect to the order passed by the learned ITAT. On 01.03.2023, an orderunder Sections 254/250/143(3) of the Act was passed computing the totalincome at ₹2,42,920/- and a refund due to the petitioner at ₹11,09,568/-. The said amount of refund included tax of ₹5,14,083/- and interest under Section 244A of the Act, which was computed at ₹5,95,485/-. 5.The petitioner also furnished an indemnity bond on 09.08.2023 asrequired by the AO confirming that it had neither claimed credit of tax of₹70,169/- nor had received any refund. 6.Although the refund due to the petitioner was determined way backon 01.03.2023, the same has not been released to the petitioner yet. 7.ThelearnedcounselappearingfortheRevenuesubmitsoninstructions that the Revenue has not been able to process the disbursement of the refund as the challans have not been digitally uploaded. He submitsthat the Revenue has been searching the records and has sent variouscommunications internally for the details of the challans to be captured onthe framework in order for the refund to be disbursed. He submits that thesaid exercise would be completed shortly and the delay in disbursement issolely on account of migration to technical system as adopted by theRevenue. 8.Undisputedly, the disbursement of the refund due to the petitionercannot be delayed inordinately on account of the Revenue facing anytechnical challenges relating to its system or processes. We also note that inview of the delay in disbursement of the refund, the quantum of refundwould also change on account of increase in the quantum of interest. of the refund as the challans have not been digitally uploaded. He submitsthat the Revenue has been searching the records and has sent variouscommunications internally for the details of the challans to be captured onthe framework in order for the refund to be disbursed. He submits that thesaid exercise would be completed shortly and the delay in disbursement issolely on account of migration to technical system as adopted by theRevenue. 8.Undisputedly, the disbursement of the refund due to the petitionercannot be delayed inordinately on account of the Revenue facing anytechnical challenges relating to its system or processes. We also note that inview of the delay in disbursement of the refund, the quantum of refundwould also change on account of increase in the quantum of interest. 9.In view of the above, we direct the respondents to process the refundduetothepetitioneralongwithfurtherinterestasapplicable,asexpeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of twelve weeksfrom date. In the event, the respondents face any technical challenges, therefund shall be disbursed by processing the same manually. We clarify thatthe challenge faced by the Revenue regarding its processes or its systemswould not be the ground for non-disbursal of the said refund. 10.The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplication also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 21, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any