Case Title: Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7140/2023 Date: 26.05.2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Introduction
Based on the grounds of the writ petition, the Delhi High Court has instructed the government to examine Travelport UK’s refund adjustment.
The panel of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan overturned the department’s decision in adjusting an amount of Rs6,27,20,736 under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act and returned the case to the appropriate body to be decided anew within four weeks.
Facts of the Case
The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment by which the respondents adjusted an amount of Rs6,27,20,736 due to the petitioner against the claim for an earlier period (Assessment Year 2019-20). On November 3, 2012, a notice suggesting a modification under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was sent, giving the petitioner thirty days to give an answer as to why a change like this should not be made.
The petitioner stated that the respondents were not permitted to make any adjustments for the Assessment Year 2019-20 dues since the demand for the assessment year had been delayed by a decision issued by the Tribunal for Income Tax Appeals on July 2, 2022.
The applicant adds that the respondent’s website on November 15 2022 also showed that the demand persisted. The petitioner was given thirty days to answer the notification, stating why a reduction of Rs 6,27,20,736 ought not to be granted against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2019-20. On November 17 2021, the responders proceeded to alter the amount and give a refund for the remaining amount. The petitioner argued that under Section 245 of the Act, it was entitled to the complete reimbursement of Rs 31,21,36,560 with no adjustments.
Courts Analysis and Decision
The government maintained that the notification under Section 143(1) implies that the petitioner did not respond.
The petitioner argued the message was deceptive. A notification dated November 3 2022 gave the petitioner thirty days to offer an answer as to why a change should not be made. However, the change was made before the thirty-day period expired.
While remanding the case to the department, the court directed that the authority accept the terms of the petition as the petitioner’s answer in accordance with the intimation of November 3, 2012.
Judgment- Click here to review the judgement
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anushka Satwani
