High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. 4 ffi ff :il*:ffi '..'r:;ff t"r:'J;"#s ;36 &'l:. \ r 5 ( 2 )' H vd ejia b ad' Av a ka r &*:l:,r::m,'rUff :'-"r:'l;"#:-135'&xln"-'u'Hvderabad'Avakar +:i?,s*::i3isi:fTfi :,g"f T,i"liiJ"",3r?[iB;3Ji]Hvderabadrncome ?:g+.;-?1ryS:1,.?.e['L","J1""1fl fi ,'r?:,3#Eo7o[;;vo""o'drncome CommissioneroflncomeTax,TD-SHyderabadlncomeTaxTowerAC Eirio'. iliiliolanx Hvderaoad 500004' ff:?"xi,Tli:;rt'i,:"'lill?i:,,'3r"&?or'o..o8i'norderdatedoTtootzo2l ....,RESPONDENTS the affidavit filed thert direction';; entire actions and prt '*n'"'u 226 of Ihe constitution of lndia praying that in the r"'J"tl;" ;:"lfJ,f:l ffI, :; of the respondents

petition Under I circumstances ,,r,uo pleased to issue a writ, mandamus decrarins,Jo:: :' culminating in t," oroul" , first responden, ". u"r.l" dated 31-05-06 issued ftlo;t "0""" "i';:Jt:li:ff::ff;:t""1.:: first respon\ent under disputed tax demand a)y 226 Q) in respect or the amount or Rs.s2:,65,02rfo,lon:"q'""; ;;;;'t|.:ec 'te respondents to return the account and impose u*"rr- l"un"'' o"t"'"ners UTI bank ."to"'". i"o, tplarv cosrs on tn" ,.".ponJli,il"' 2o1 and'o'lro, olt"edings Counsel for the petitioner #ffi:l8t8i,n *s*n#ffi x;#ul.*NE D sE N,oR The Court made the following ORDER t --_'--------7 '.,/ THE HONOT]RABLE SzuJUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY THE HoNoI,RABLE snirusrrcn' NARSING RAo ANT) NANDTKONDA WRIT P E,'IITI ON No .168910 F 2006 Heard Mr' ORDER, (Ptr Hon 5lt Sri .ltistic,: P \o, K^r,-r7 C.V. Narasimham' leame<l counsel tbr the petitioners and Ms' B' Sapna Reddy' ieam ed Senior Standing Counsel -l'ax De1:a$tucnt' appear lg for resPondcnts Pcrused thc for Income record. 2 Initialty, the presenl writ petition wirs filed chaltenging the rmpugn ecl order dated 3l'03'200b passetl by respondent No l undel Sections 201(t) and 20i(iAl read vrith Sectiorr tg(ic' 194J and I95 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') ar-rd also clttashment of Notice clated i l'05'2006 issLred by respotident No 1 uhdei Scctiorr 216 (3)o l- the Act itt respcct of tire dispuiecl tar' 'l hc l'etitioners had also sought for relief of retutn of au amoutrt oi Rs'52'(15'029i- allegedly to have bccn recovered illegalty from the petitioneL's [-iTl bank account.

3. Pending the petition' respo'rdent No'3 had passed an order on 10.03.2017 under Scctions 201(l) and 201(lA) read with Section 254 of the Act. holding that the amount payable by thc petitioner in fact \-- - was Rs.g,-59,4651_ and nor Rs.52,6i,029/_ as was earlier. The Department' meanwhile had already recovered the aforementioned amount o1. Rs.52.65,02 9/_ and after ad.f usting the amount of Rs.8.58.465,-, rhe anrounr would corne ro Rs.44,06.564l_. The said ou3hr to had becn eirher \refunded .amount to the petitioner or ought to had been adiusted against an-r of the dues pending against the petitioner lbr the subsequent years. The writ petition now stands confined onlv on the said claim of the pctitioner. Meanwhile, the respondents had nor.v again come up r.r,ith the recalculation done as would bc evident liorn the Rectificarion order dated l2.Ol.2[1g, wherein the Departnrent has again passed an order calculating the total amount relundable cornirrg to Rs.gq.j0.549l_. i.e.. an amount of Rs.52,65.029L which rvas earlier recor,er.,J und i)rt.r.rt on the said amount (4) 0 5% for thc period of, I40 months from July 2006 to January. 201t8. Subsequenth,. there u.as _\.et another rdcalculation made by the l)epartnrent and wherein the [)epartment has reached to the conclusion that the refund arnount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs. I ,01 .87.113 I /-. whereas. there is an ourstanding demand against the petitioner cf an amounr ol Rs.4.12.24.1g0l_. The calculation of Rs.4,42.24.780/- is on the basis of the outsranding demand shown as Rs.29,54,369/- that u,as saicl to bc the oulslanding amount fbr the -1,.F /' SA I 3 Assessment Year 200i-04' This amount of Rs'29'54'369/- found to be an eroneous calculation for the reason that the actual amount admine<1ly comes tQ only Rs'8'58'4651 instead of again was \ Rs.29,54,369i- 4. Considering the various orders and the subsequent rectilication and modilication orders passed' what is clearty reflected lrom the documents is that admitledty' an amount of Rs'52'65'029/- was recovered from the bank account of the petitioner way back in June' 2006. Irrom the saitl amount' the actual amount recoverable from the petitioner was tbund to be onry Rs.g,5g,465r as per the respondent- Department itselt" Thus' an amount of Rs'44'06'5641 stood refundable to the petitioner liom the amount that was recovered in June, 2006 It is this amount on which interest has to b; paid to the petitioners @ O'5%,stafiing tiom 0l'06'2006 onwards arid whatever the amount comes to' that amount needs to be adjusted against any of the outstanding anlount tying against the petitioner if any' So far as the said hnding is concerned' there does not seem to be any quarrel on either side i.e., by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also by the leamecl Standing Counsel lor Income Tax Department' \ \\ I \

5. In view of the abor petition at this junctur" ."'* Officer. r.r,ho in tum shall petitioners " are inclined to dispo mining the mafier back to the Assessing recalculate the r.vhole accounts of fhe rn ferms of the obsen,ations nrade in the preceding se of the writ I due and that was the " l.e ., t,n ch Gl i,,t ]li..l r^ r' paragraphs so far as the an was re ru n d a b r e ro rhe r ";::t :' amount payable after adjusting the dues payable fur the Assessment y ear 2003_04, an aniounr of Rs.g.5g,465l_. Let lnlerest also be calculated on the said anrount and suitable adjustments tre made on the outstanding dues ol thc petitioner. Let this whole e::ercise be completed within an outer_ lirnit of six (06) weeks lronr tlre date of receipt of a cop_r ol.r h is order. 6. The Writ petition. accordingh.. stands dislrosed of. There previous shall be no order as to costs. ConseqLrentlv. miscellaneous petrrrons pending. ifhny, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY' S SWAMY ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To Q6 7 SA

1. The Assistant CommiSsioner of Income Tax , Circle 2. The Assistant Commiss ioner of lncome Tax, Range-15, Hyderabad, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad, Ayakar (2), Bh avan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004

3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax , TDS Circle - 2(1), HYderabad lncome Tax Tower A.C. Guards Masab Tank HYd erabad 500004 4. The DePutY Commissioner of lnCome Tax, TDS Circle 2(1 ) Hyderabad lncome lax I ower A.u Guards Masab Tank HYderabad 500004. The Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS HYderabad lnco me Tax Tower A C Gu ards Masab Tank HYderabad 500004 One CC to SRI C.V.NARA StMHAlrr'l, Advo cate [OPUC] One CC to Ms, B.SAPNA REDDY, LEARN ED SENIOR STANDING AX DEPARTM ENT. Advocate IOPUCI COUNSEL FOR INCOME T E

8. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:26 tO6t2OZs \ r'rR k S i4 ) \6' i; 16 StP 206 \. '\l '.i- ' .;o., .. :i -..--.--',.: ,;-7 t. ORDER WP.No.16891 of 2006 \ 'l a \ ,i ,-. , / Ir-; DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. i