Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
Uttarakhand High Court held In the case of CIT (TDS) & others vs. State Bank of India & others that every authority of discretionary power would be obliged to act, in the first place, being guided by relevant considerations and ignoring irrelevant considerations. The relevant considerations, in this case, would be the fact that there is no stay obtained by the assessee in the appeal against the assessment for the year 2015-2016; but, equally, the authority would be bound to consider the fact that, for the Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013, the Tribunal has ruled in favour of the assessee in regard to the applicability of the issue. The officer is duty bound not to invoke Section 245 without application of mind.
Facts of the Case
On 18.07.2014, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in three appeals, passed a judgment and allowed the appeals filed by the writ petitioner and dismissed the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department holding that the provision of Section 194A(1) is not applicable to the SRF deposit made. On 30.07.2014, on the basis of the said judgment, writ petitioner applied for refund of Rs. 44,36,57,686/- with interest, which the Department had coercively recovered from the writ petitioner.
Writ petitioner further sent communication dated 08.09.2014 seeking refund. It is, thereafter, that the impugned letter dated 04.12.2014 was issued. In this letter department acknowledge the refund due to the assessee and the same time informed that a demand of Rs. 97,85,38,937/- for the AY 2014-15 is still pending. The refund of Rs. 46,14,03,993/- is therefore being adjusted U/s 245 against the demand due of Rs. 97,85,38,937/- for the AY 2014-15. The assessee filed a writ petition agains such orders. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. It was held that once I.T.A.T. has opined that Section 194A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable against the Bank on SRF deposit, then the same legal position would be applicable in the subsequent assessment years as well, unless of course, Section 194A is amended or is substituted by any new law. Also held that unless and until order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been stayed or set aside by the higher Forum, refund shall not be denied to the petitioner. Accordingly this appeal is filed by the revenue agaisnt this order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
