+W.p.(C) 7438/2025Mr. Anil Kumar Goel v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Delhi 10 And Ors

$~100 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 +W.P.(C) 7438/2025MR. ANIL KUMAR GOEL .....PetitionerThrough:Ms. Himanshi Goel with Mr. MayankSharma, Advs. along with petitioner. versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI 10 AND ORS. .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr.Apoorv Agarwal and Mr. ParthSamwal, JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) 1.This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) issuance of writ under Article 226 and 227 oftheConstitutionofIndiainthenatureofmandamus or any other appropriate writ, order,or direction directing the respondents to issue theconsequential refund in compliance of orderdated 08/02/2017 passed by LD CIT (Appeals) forAY 2007-08 along with refunds adjusted for otheryears with interest and cost;b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directingRespondent No. 1 to grant the statutory interest tothe Petitioner under Section 244A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, as applicable; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any otherappropriate writ, order, or direction directingRespondent No. 1 to grant the penal interest to thePetitioner as applicable; d) Recompute the refund along with interest to bepaid by the department;paid by the department; e) Award costs of litigation to the Petitioner andgrantcompensationforthelegalcost,harassment, inconvenience, and undue hardshipcaused due to the inaction and failure of theRespondents.” 2.In effect, the petitioner is seeking refund of certain amounts alongwith interest for four different assessment years. It is a case that the samehas not been done and the same is liable to be paid with applicable interest.Ms. Himanshi Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerhas drawn our attention to page 39 of the paper-book to contend that thetotal refund the petitioner is entitled to as on the date of filing of the writpetition is Rs. 9,98,236.80. The chart at page 39 is reproduced as under:- 3.Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal haveplaced before us certain documents to contend that the respondents haveworked out the amount payable to the petitioner and the amount includingthe interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.4.If that be so, the amount due and payable to the petitioner shall bereleased within a period of eight weeks as an outer limit. The breakup of thesaid amount shall be furnished within the same time period. 5.If the petitioner is of the view that the payment of the amount is short,a representation shall be made to the Assessing Officer giving justificationfor further refund and the same shall be considered by the Assessing Officerin accordance with the Rules and communicate its decision to the petitionerwithin a period of four weeks thereafter. 6.If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by theAssessing Officer, liberty shall be with the petitioner to file an applicationfor revival of this petition, along with the order received. 7.This petition is disposed of accordingly. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/sr VINOD KUMAR, J