High Court · 2025

3. Centralizeil P.c"Sring Centre, 1st Fld'br, Prestige Alpha No 48/1 4812, Qgqqtelagp raharar Begur, Hosu r Rd, Uttarahal li Hobli, Bengaluru, .Karnataka 560100 1

4. The Assistant commissioner of lncom&ax, bircle 2s(1),central Revenue : Building, l.P. Estate, New Delhi - 1100&2 *j ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 andto, Ahi"l" 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to direct the Respondents to pass the correct and necessary appeal effect orders in quantum proceeding in accordance with law and issue the quantum refund due to the Petitioner for A.Y. 2O1O-11, amourlhing to Rs. 10,63,69,73gl- being the balance interest liability due under section 244A and section 244(1A) on the ! I I principal amount of Rs. 13,68,09,954/- (refunded on 30.O7.2025) in a time bound manner and to pass such other order or orders including costs of this Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.ANANYA KAPOOR, rep., SRI T.PRADYOTH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI, (sENroR sc FoR rNcoME TAX ) The Court made the following: ORDER i'i ,f lr!. t, r.r I AND THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN WRIT PETITION 0.28318 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel representing Mr. T.Pradyoth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affrdavit, it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 andlor Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Respondents to pass the correct and necessary appeal effect orders in quantum proceeding in accordance with law and issue the quantum refund due to the Petitioner for A.Y. 2010-11, amounting to Rs.10,63,69,7391- being the balance interest liability due under section 244A and section 2aa$A) on the principal amount of Rs.13,68,09,954/- (refunded on 3O.O7.2O25lr in a time bound ma.nner and to pass such other order or orders including costs of this Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents \ / f ! , I i I i 2 I as this Honble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the crrcumstances of the case."

3. Department has filed a counter affidavit. Learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention oi this court to the averments made therein and specificalry those at sub-paragraphs of paragraph No.17, which is extracted hereunder "17' In replv to Ground c, it is respectfu,y submitted that although it has taken time in the processing of trre refund, every possible effort has been made to complete trre process at the earliest. It is further submitted that the batance pending refunds have already been processed by C'C_TDS, initialty on lo'Lo'2o2s and subsequently on 30.10.202s, and w,r be credited to the petitioner's bank account shortry, upon resolution of the current bank account error in the refund banker system by the petitioner. The time taken was neither intentionar nor arbitrary but occasioned by bona fide administrative and procedural requirements as outlined below, including the deray from petitioner in comp\ring to a few of these procedures, as stated above. i) Verilication of Bank and chaflan Details: The respondents conducted a thorough varidation of the petitioner,s bank account and verifred each challan claimed for refund to ensure accuracy. This included confirming challan consumption status, proof of pa5rment, and verifying that credit had not already been allowed outside the system. ii) Assessment of outstanding Demalds: A comprehensive review was undertaken to verify any outstanding dema,ds rinked { I 3 to the petitioner's TAN: HYDTOOSS4B, as well as all associated TANs and PAN: AAACT2438A across jurisdictions. As this oflice has jurisdiction only over the Hyderabad TAN, formal communications were issued to all 19 TAN Assessing officers and the PAN Assessing oflic'er across India to obtain updated demand positions. iii) Administrative Transition: The present incumbent of Respondent No. 1 assumed charge on O2.O5.2O25 following annual transfers and, upon taking charge, initiated a detailed review of all pending refund matters concerning the petitioner. A communication was issued to the petitioner seeking confirmation of the current demand status against all associated TANs and the PAN. iv) Submission of Information by the Petitioner: In response, the petitioner, vide letter dated 28.05.2025, stated that most demands were not enforceable, except for a demand of Rs.88,09,385/- against sister TAN CHETO2Z4B, for which a stay was pending. The petitioner subsequently furnished the stay order issued by ITO (TDS), Ward-3(3), Chennai, vide Order No. C.No. Stag of Demand/(TDS) Ward-3(3)/2025-26 dated 18.06.2025. v) Processing of Rectification and Refund Application: Folrowing verifrcation, all other demands (aggregating to approximately Rs.28O crores) were reflected as "STAYED" on the TRACES portal. Thereafter, rectification orders were passed on 20.06.2025, and the Form 26El refund application was processed and submitted on 26.06-2025 for approval and release by CpC- TDS, Ghaziabad, in line with the prescribed guidelines. vi) Issuance of Refund and Pending Interest Component: A refund of Rs.14,22,82,352/- for A.Y. 2O1O-l l, including interest of Rs. 54,72,398/-, was issued by CPC-TDS on 3O.OZ.2O2S. Tlne balance interest amount of Rs. 10,26,0T ,466 / -, as determined in the rectification order, was separately processed by CpC-TDS on LO.IO.2O25 and transmitted to the refund banker for credit to I / 4 I ; { the petitioner's account. Howevdr, the refund request was rejected twice, the latest on 30. Lo.2o2s, due to *In'alid. bank account details - Account not available in core system." The issue has been communicated to the petitioner, and the refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system. In view of the above, it is respectfuly submitted that the processing of the refund involved multipre statutory checks, jurisdictional dependencies, and system-level validations, which were duly complied with by the Respondent in a timery and diligent manner. Further, it is respectfurly submitted that the refund of Rs.76,73,o28/- determined for A.y. 2oor-0g vide the order Giving Effect passed in september 2024 was processed on lo.Lo.2025, and a manuar cheque was issued to the authorised banker, pending this writ petition. The additional checks and procedures pertaining to the manual processing of the refunds for the AY's prior to the Ay 200g-09 were followed in this case for a quite some time and finaly the manual cheques could be issued on 1O.1O.2O25. Further, as stated above, the pending refund pertaining to the interest amount of Rs. Lr,g},s2,ggg/_ for A.Y. 2oo8-og to A.y. 2oLo-rl is arso under process by the cPC-TDS/Refund Banker. It is submitted that cpc_TDS has . the processing of the said refund request on completed Lo.lo.2o25 and has forwarded the case to the refund banker for credit of the amount to the petitioner's bank account. However, the refund request was rejected twice, the latest rejection being 3o-lo-2o25, due to 'Invarid bank account d.etails,, showing error "Account not availabre in core system". The same is communicated to the petitioner and the cpc-TDS is trying to resolve the issue with refund banker. The refund is expected to be creditecl to the petitioner,s bank account shortly, upon resolution of the current bank account error in the refund banker system.,, \ 5

4. The stand of the respondents from paragraph No.17 as extracted above shows that a balance interest amount of Rs.10,26,O7,466f- is due to the petitioner as determined in the rectification order. However, due to invalid bank account details, the refund request was rejected twice. This issue has been communicated to the , petitioner. The refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant bank details have already been supplied to the respondents.

6. Let it be supplied to the 3'd respondent, if not supplied already

7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents \ \ submits that since the claim for refund is not disputed by the Department, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction upon them to pay the amount of Rs.10,26,O7,466/- within a time bound manner. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that if the account details ,l i i I ! of the petitioner have been furnished, the refund amount would be credited to its account within a period of four weeks from today.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the remaining interest amount, the petitioner would be making a representation to the Assessing Officer. 9 If such a representation is made, it shall be considered, in accordance u.ith law. tO. In view of the stand of the respondents, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of. Let the admissible refund amount be credited to the petitioner's account as against the details provided by it within a period of four weeks from today. However, therr: shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.U. SUDHA ASsrsrANiggraiilA / (? SECTION OFFICER I

3. The Centratized processing-9"ntl '+ifi ,*::'ilil'3,";lg:";:HTlxtrtr?1trt,??5f,l!,"j?,,!,Jr,Fd6fl ",", 2. The Commissioner of ln Hvderabad, rera ngdna :3&?Jf ' fi DS)' Aava kar Bhava n, Basheerbagh, 1sI Floor, prestige Alpha No 4Bt1 4812. Beratenagarahara Begur, Hosur Rci, u-tiiiJ[airi Hiiri, eengaturu, Karnataki ' #1,#".;' ::a:L:flilyii:fr H rfl I 11756g;*, c i rc, e 2 5 ( 1 ), c e n tra lR;ve n u e I -:l

5. One CC to SRI T.PRADYOTH, Advocate' [OPUCI 6.oneCCtoSRIRAJASHEKARRAoSALVAJI,(sENloRSCFoRlNcoME TAX).loPUCl , \

7. Two CD CoPies. BSK LS W .? ,/ :lr}''r : ": HIGH COURT ]i:Ii . :,{' . t;t''.fi '' DATED t2ot11t2oi6r:r .lr $' \ --l ('. ti- \Ila o C) * n u J i!Eil 2il25 !l .,J f I -A' ORDER WP.No.28318 of 2025 i: $ DISPOSING OF T'.HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (yt ')D 3 \v