+W.p.(C) 2849/2025 And Cm Appl v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Processing Centre & Anr

$~11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 2849/2025 and CM APPL. 13474/2025GLOBAL CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERSPVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR TARUNKATHURIA .....Petitioner Through:Mr Gaurav Jain and Mr ShudarshanRoy, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE & ANR. .....RespondentsThrough:Ms Naincy Jain, Ms Madhavi Shuklaand Mr Ujjwal Jain, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R %16.04.2025 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “a)a writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus orany other appropriate writ, direction or order for processingthe return of income filed by the Petitioner on 16.11.2022pursuant to order dt. 14.10.2022 passed by the Central Boardof Direct taxes through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -4, New Delhi under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and grant therefund of Rs. 42,73,570/- due to the Petitioner pursuant to theapprovaldt.05.09.2024issuedbytheAdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax, Range – 10, New Delhi;any other appropriate writ, direction or order for processingthe return of income filed by the Petitioner on 16.11.2022pursuant to order dt. 14.10.2022 passed by the Central Boardof Direct taxes through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -4, New Delhi under section 119(2)(b) of the Act and grant therefund of Rs. 42,73,570/- due to the Petitioner pursuant to theapprovaldt.05.09.2024issuedbytheAdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax, Range – 10, New Delhi; b)a writ of and/or order and/or direction to the Respondent No.1and/or Respondent No. 2 to grant appropriate interest underthe statute applicable on the refund due to the Petitioner;”and/or Respondent No. 2 to grant appropriate interest underthe statute applicable on the refund due to the Petitioner;” 2.The petitioner had filed its return for assessment year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017. However, the said return was found defective and was,accordingly, so marked on 24.05.2018. A notice under Section 139(9) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was also issued on the said date. It is thepetitioner’s case that he could not comply with the said notice within theprescribed time on account of genuine hardship. 3.In view of the above, the petitioner filed an application under Section119(2)(b) of the Act with the Central Board of Direct Taxes through the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi requestingfor condonation of delay in filing the return in the revised form. The saidapplication was allowed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-4, NewDelhi by an order dated 14.10.2022. The petitioner’s request forcondoning the delay in filing the revised return was allowed. 4.The petitioner, thereafter, filed a return declaring a total income of₹3,14,270/-. In terms of the said return, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a refund of a sum of ₹42,73,570/-. However, the said refund has not been processed. 5.The petitioner had repeatedly raised his grievance with the IncomeTax Authorities. However, the petitioner’s grievance has not been addressedas yet. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states that thepetitioner’s grievance has been taken up by the concerned authorities and thesame would be addressed shortly. She states that the Assessing Officer wasrequired to upload the revised return for the Central Processing Unit,Bengaluru [CPC Bengaluru] to process the same. She states that the said return was uploaded with the requisite approvals and the CPC Bengaluru hasalso verified the details. However, there are certain issues with the technicalportal, which are being resolved. She also claims that the petitioner’s claimof refund may be subject to adjustment against outstanding demands. 5.The petitioner had repeatedly raised his grievance with the IncomeTax Authorities. However, the petitioner’s grievance has not been addressedas yet. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states that thepetitioner’s grievance has been taken up by the concerned authorities and thesame would be addressed shortly. She states that the Assessing Officer wasrequired to upload the revised return for the Central Processing Unit,Bengaluru [CPC Bengaluru] to process the same. She states that the said return was uploaded with the requisite approvals and the CPC Bengaluru hasalso verified the details. However, there are certain issues with the technicalportal, which are being resolved. She also claims that the petitioner’s claimof refund may be subject to adjustment against outstanding demands. 7.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the presentpetition by directing the respondents to process the petitioner’s claim forrefund along with applicable interest as expeditiously as possible, in anyevent within a period of twelve weeks from date. In the event that theconcerned authority is required to adjust the refund due against any otheroutstanding demand, the authority is not precluded from doing so subject tothe same being done in accordance with law. 8.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pendingapplication is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 16, 2025RKClick here to check corrigendum, if any