- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Directs Tax Authorities To Dispose Of Rectification Application
Delhi High Court Directs Tax Authorities To Dispose Of Rectification Application Tax authorities did not make any arguments and agreed to dispose of Petitioner's rectification application within six weeks and to process the refund within three weeks thereafter The Delhi High Court has directed the tax authorities to dispose of a Petitioner's rectification application, within six weeks...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court Directs Tax Authorities To Dispose Of Rectification Application
Tax authorities did not make any arguments and agreed to dispose of Petitioner's rectification application within six weeks and to process the refund within three weeks thereafter
The Delhi High Court has directed the tax authorities to dispose of a Petitioner's rectification application, within six weeks by way of a reasoned order and to further pay the Petitioner's refund within three weeks thereafter.
The matter titled L S Cable And System Ltd v Union Of India & Ors was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula.
The Court did not go into the factual background of the matter and only considered the issue of the Petitioner – Assessee seeking a direction to the Respondent – Authorities to issue refund determined vide assessment order u/S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018 along with remaining interest and to decide Petitioner's rectification application.
The Petitioner – Assessee contended that the Respondent – Authorities had withheld the refund due to the Petitioner without any reason and/or explanation. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer could pass an order withholding the grant of refund only up to the date on which assessment was made i.e. during the pendency of the scrutiny assessment. However, the scrutiny assessment against the Petitioner had been concluded and the order u/S 143 (3) of the Act had already been passed.
The Petitioner further submitted that u/S 154(8) of the Act, the statutory period to dispose of a rectification application was "6 months from the end of month in which the application was received", which already stood expired in the present case.
The Respondent – Authorities did not make any arguments and agreed to dispose of Petitioner's rectification application within six weeks and to process the refund within three weeks thereafter.
The Court, therefore, directed the Respondent – Authorities to dispose of the Petitioner's rectification application, within six weeks by way of a reasoned order and to process and pay the Petitioner's refund within three weeks thereafter in accordance with law.