Bombay High Court Directs Refund of Admitted Amount in Income Tax Rectification Order — Petitioner Entitled to Refund of Rs.833 Crores Under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the revenue cannot retain the admitted refund amount and directed refund within four weeks, subject to verification.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Vodafone Idea Limited, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for refund of Rs.1009,43,88,637/- as quantified by a rectification order dated 28th May, 2020 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed its return of income on 30th September, 2015 for Assessment Year 2015-16, declaring a total income of Rs.1,02,88,43,44,750/- and claiming a refund of Rs.1,009,43,88,637/-. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act on 28th May, 2020, determining a total income of Rs.1,02,88,43,44,750/- and granting a refund of Rs.1,009,43,88,637/-. However, the revenue subsequently issued a notice under Section 154 proposing to rectify the assessment order, and passed a rectification order under Section 154 read with Section 155 of the Act on 28th May, 2020, reducing the refund to Rs.833,04,88,000/-. The petitioner challenged the rectification order and sought refund of the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/-. The court, after hearing the parties, directed the respondents to refund the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to verification of the PAN and other details. The court held that the revenue cannot retain the admitted refund amount and that the petitioner is entitled to the refund as an interim measure.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Refund - Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Rectification Order - The petitioner sought refund of Rs.833,04,88,000/- admitted by the revenue in a rectification order dated 28th May, 2020. The court held that the revenue cannot retain the admitted refund amount and directed refund within four weeks, subject to verification. (Paras 1-14)

B) Income Tax - Interim Relief - Mandamus - The court considered the petitioner's prayer for interim relief in a writ petition seeking refund of Rs.1009,43,88,637/-. The court directed refund of the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- as an interim measure, holding that the revenue's retention of the admitted refund is unjustified. (Paras 3-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim direction for refund of the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- as per the rectification order dated 28th May, 2020 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the respondents to refund the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to verification of PAN and other details. The petition is to be listed for further hearing in due course.

Law Points

  • Refund of admitted amount
  • Section 245 rectification order
  • Interim relief
  • Mandamus for refund
  • Income Tax Act
  • 1961
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (06) 13

WP-LD-VC NO. 81 OF 2020

2020-06-26

R. D. Dhanuka, Madhav J. Jamdar

Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Paras Savla, Mr. Harsh Shah i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner; Mr. Sham Walve for the Respondents

Vodafone Idea Limited

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(2) (2), Mumbai; The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, City-5, Mumbai; Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition seeking refund of income tax under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus for refund of Rs.1009,43,88,637/- as per rectification order dated 28th May, 2020, and interim refund of admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/-.

Filing Reason

Revenue passed a rectification order reducing the refund amount from Rs.1009,43,88,637/- to Rs.833,04,88,000/- and failed to refund the admitted amount.

Previous Decisions

Assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B dated 28th May, 2020 granted refund of Rs.1009,43,88,637/-. Subsequently, rectification order under Section 154 read with Section 155 dated 28th May, 2020 reduced refund to Rs.833,04,88,000/-.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim direction for refund of the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- as per the rectification order dated 28th May, 2020 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the revenue has admitted the refund of Rs.833,04,88,000/- in the rectification order and cannot retain the same without justification. Respondents opposed the interim relief, but the court found no valid reason for withholding the admitted refund.

Ratio Decidendi

The revenue cannot retain the admitted refund amount under a rectification order; the petitioner is entitled to the refund as an interim measure pending final adjudication of the writ petition.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition inter alia praying for a Writ of Mandamus and seeks refund of refund of Rs.1009,43,88,637/- as quantified by order dated 28th May, 2020. In prayer clause (b) of the petition, the petitioner seeks admitted refund of Rs.833,04,88,000/- in accordance with the rectification/section 245 order dated 28th May, 2020. The respondents are directed to refund the admitted amount of Rs.833,04,88,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Writ Petition on an unspecified date. On 26th June, 2020, the court heard the parties and passed an interim order directing refund of the admitted amount.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 154, Section 155, Section 245
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Dowry Death Case Due to Unreliable Child Witness and Lack of Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Director in Cooperative Society Fraud Case — No Membership or Consent Found. Applicant Kishor Pandurang Garad, arraigned as accused no.16 in Crime No.86/2011 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I...