Intertek India Private Limited

$~A-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6361/2021 & CM APPL. 21994/2021
INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Advocate with
Mr.Divyansh Singh, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate with
Ms.Zehra Khan and Mr.Shubhendru
Bhattacharyya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 26.11.2021
In the present case, refund amount stands paid to the petitioner.
However, as the issue of lack of coordination between the Assessing Officer
and CPC was arising in a number of matters, this Court had directed the
Chairman, CBDT to put in place an appropriate standard operating
procedure.
In response to the said direction, the Commissioner of Tax (Judicial),
Delhi, has placed on record a Report dated 27th October, 2021. The relevant
portion of the said Report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“…….7.5 For most of the scenarios, functionalities are

already present in the software - which is an integrated
platform made up of ITBA, CPC Bengaluru, CPC-TDS, e-
Filing etc. Therefore, the refunds in most of the scenarios can
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:29.11.2021
17:45:32
be issued through system. However, for some rare scenarios
that cannot be handled through software system, ITBA
Assessment Instruction No. 11 dated 18.06.2019 also provides
that refund can be issued by the Assessing Officer by manual
cheque with the approval of Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax concerned.
7.6 The system applications mirror these Notifications,

Circulars or User Manuals and are continuously evolving
depending on the changes in Law or needs of the
taxpayers/Department.
8.heading……
8.1 While the set of Guidelines, Instructions, Circulars or
Notifications cover most scenarios that any taxpayer or
Officer may encounter, there may be situations where the
systems may not work as anticipated or a situation which may
require change.
8.2 In cases where any difficulty arises in working on system,
there are dedicated Helpdesks manned by the concerned
Service Providers supervised by ITD personnel. The field
officers have login access on the Helpdesk systems to raise
Tickets on various issues. For ITBA and CPC related issues,
tickets are raised on ITBA Helpdesk, which also transfers them
to CPC team in case the issue pertains to CPC. In large
number of cases, the issues get resolved by the Helpdesk. The
Helpdesk also has various internal levels of escalations for
complicated issues.
8.3 In rare cases where issues are of such complications that
they are not resolved by Helpdesk, the field officers also
escalate the same by emails to the office of DGIT (Systems) or
concerned verticals of the Systems Directorate, such as CPC,
ITBA etc. The officers in the verticals then coordinate with the
technical teams, i.e., service providers, to get the issues
resolved expeditiously.
8.4 The Department has taken note of the challenge that with
rapid pace of computerization in every sphere of work of

Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:45:32
Direct Taxes, the number of system-related issues being faced
is naturally likely to increase, especially, in the present
transition period. However, as functionalities stabilize and
changes are put in place for which work is ongoing, the
difficulties will reduce.
9. Therefore, while the existing SOPs for working on system
and for coordination and feedback between Assessing officers
and CPC/Systems Directorate ensure consistent and
systematic work throughout the Department in most cases,
further strengthening of existing mechanisms and additional
SOP is being undertaken by the Department, in pursuance of
the Hon'ble Court's directives…….”
In view of the assurance given hereinabove, the present writ petition is

closed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2021
TS

Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:45:32
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6361/2021
INTERTEK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate with
Mr. Prashant Meharchandani and
Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing
counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 26.07.2021
The application has been heard by way of video conferencing.
CM Appl.21995/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
CM Appl. 21994/2021
1. Present application has been filed in a disposed of writ petition
seeking directions to the respondent to issue fresh computation in
consonance with the rectification order dated 09th July, 2021 within four
weeks and to adjudicate the rectification application filed by the petitioner
with respect to the interest under Sections 234A under the Income Tax Act,
1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the consequential issue of
interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act within the same period.

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6361/2021 Page 1 of 5
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:19:19
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner received a
rectification order dated 09th July, 2021 wherein it has been mentioned that
refund of the adjusted amount of Rs.11,45,74,210/- and the self-assessment
plus advance tax of Rs.1,22,31,222/- have been allowed. He points out that
the order reads that these credits were allowed earlier as well but due to
some technical glitch, the same were not allowed by the system.
3. He further states that along with the rectification order dated 09th July,
2021, the petitioner has once again received the exact same computation
sheet which it had received along with the earlier rectification order dated
06th November, 2020. He states that the petitioner has been placed in the
same situation as it was prior to the filing of the last rectification application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the statement made by
the counsel for the respondent in Court on the last date of hearing, when the
writ petition was disposed of, is contrary to the computation dated 09th July,
2021. The order dated 12th July, 2021 disposing of the writ petition is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to
the respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s rectification
application for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 24th November,
2020 within a period of four weeks. Petitioner also seeks a
direction to the respondent to issue consequential refunds as
determined by the respondent along with statutory and other
interest within the same period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the errors
pointed out in the rectification application dated 24th November,
2020 are mere computation mistakes apparent on the face of the
record as provided under Section 154(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the same have not
been disputed by the respondent till date. He further states that the

By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:19:19
respondent did pass a rectification order dated 06th November,
2020, however, the same is perverse and some mistakes therein are
contrary to the undisputed record and the others are so obvious
that the computation is at variance with the rectification order
itself.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent
has failed to discharge its duties as mandated by law, by not
rectifying the mistakes made by it under Section 143(1) of the Act,
an intimation dated 31st March, 2017 for the past three years
despite rectification applications filed by the petitioner on three
occasions [26th April, 2018, 15th November, 2019 and 24th
November, 2020] and repeated reminders.
5. He submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent is
in clear violation of Section 154(8) of the Act, which mandates that
the Authority before which the rectification application is pending
has to pass an order within six months from the end of the month in
which the application is received by it. He also submits that the
inaction of the respondent is contrary to and in violation of CBDT
Circular No.14/2001 and CBDT Instructions No.3/2013 and
1/2016.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of
this Court in Hyosung Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.,
W.P.(C). No. 4736/2020.
7. Issue Notice. Mr.Kunal Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel
for Income Tax Department accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent. He states that the petitioner’s rectification application
dated 24th November, 2020 has been allowed and petitioner’s claim
has been processed for refund and communicated to CPC
Bangalore.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the
present writ petition along with pending application by directing
the respondent to make the payment of the refund to the petitioner
within a period of four weeks.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.”

By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:19:19
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that instead of refund, the
petitioner has been served with a demand notice of Rs.1,56,57,140/-.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr. Kunal Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents. He states that he has received instruction from the Assessing
Officer stating that on 09th July, 2021, he had passed the refund order and it
was communicated to the Centralized Processing Centre (for short “CPC”).
He states that the CPC has not acted on the said refund order and passed a
demand notice.
8. However, a perusal of the annexures to the present application reveals
that even the impugned computation sheet has been digitally signed by the
concerned Assessing Officer!
9. This Court finds that the impugned order in the present application
has been passed on the third rectification application filed by the petitioner
seeking rectification of the mistakes made by the Assessing Officer in the
assessment order dated 31st March, 2017 passed under Section 143 (1) of the
Act. Though this Court and the assessee are being repeatedly informed that
the petitioner’s claim for refund has been allowed, yet the assessee is at the
same position where he was four years ago.
10. This Court also finds that it is being repeatedly saddled with
applications in disposed of matters either due to lack of coordination
between the Assessing Officer and CPC, Bangalore or due to lack of power
or vigilance on the part of the Assessing Officer to implement its own order.
This is surprising as there is no dispute on the merits and there is no legal
issue to be adjudicated.

By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:19:19
11. This Court is of the opinion that assesses/taxpayers cannot be made to
run from pillar to post for securing their legitimate tax refunds and that too
after they have been determined by the revenue itself. This has become a
problem as the taxpayers for securing their legitimate refunds have to time
and again approach the Courts for their release.
12. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the issue of lack of
coordination between the Assessing Officer and CPC, Bangalore and/or
empowerment of Assessing Officer needs to be examined at the highest
level. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to place the entire paper
book along with today’s order before the Chairman, CBDT, so that a proper
standard operating system is put in place and orders passed by the Assessing
Officer are given effect to within a time frame and no inconvenience is
caused to the assessee as well as to the Court. The matter shall be forwarded
to the Chairman, CBDT by the counsel for the respondent along with the
entire paper book and order sheets forthwith.
13. Let the report of the Chairman, CBDT be placed on record within four
weeks from today.
14. List the matter on 16th September, 2021.
15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 26, 2021
js

By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:19:19

Intertek India Private Limited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intertek India Private Limited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

$~A-12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

“…….7.5 For most of the scenarios, functionalities are

Signature Not Verified

7.6 The system applications mirror these Notifications,

Signature Not Verified

In view of the assurance given hereinabove, the present writ petition is

Signature Not Verified