Allowed

Srishti Constructions v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Sept 2010CWP/4213/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the quashing of a footnote in an income tax order. The Court held that the respondents failed to justify adjusting a refund against a stay-granted demand without issuing the mandatory intimation required under Section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition was allowed with liberty to pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the foot note to the order dated 23.2.2010 with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Srishti Constructions Vs Addl… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No.4213 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2010

¶3

M/s Srishti Constructions.

¶4

-----Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & another.

¶7

-----Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶13

This petition seeks quashing of foot note to order dated 23.2.2010, Annexure P-12, to the following effect:-

¶14

“Note:

¶15

Demand of Rs.8,65,970/- created under section 143(1) of original return taken to remission account No.......

¶16

Refund of Rs.17,78,750/- adjusted against demand of Rs.16,71,187/- created under section 143(3) for assessment year 2007-08. Balance refundable: 1,07,563/-.”

¶17

CWP No.4213 of 2010

¶18

¶19

Case of the petitioners is that as a result of assessment for the assessment year 2008-09, refund became due but instead of giving the refund as required, the amount was adjusted towards demand for the assessment year 2007-08. Appeal against the order of assessment for the year 2007-08 was pending and stay had been granted to the extent of 50% of the demand. Moreover, for passing an order of adjustment under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), intimation was required to be given to the petitioner which was not done.

¶20

In reply to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have not been able to show why the adjustment was made in respect of the amount covered by order of stay and without any intimation, as required under Section 245 of the Act. In absence thereof, the petition has to be allowed.

¶21

Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the foot note to order dated 23.2.2010, Annexure P-12, with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶22

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶23

September 07, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE

Srishti Constructions v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srishti Constructions v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ram Gopal Murli Dhar Juntra Vs State of Haryana

Hemant Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santokh Singh Dhillon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Standard Agro Vet (P) Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vishwakarma Coop. Labour & Constrn. Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.