The Delhi High Court in the case Travelport International Operations Limited United Kingdom Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 3 N.Delhi & Ors observed and has directed to reconsider ravelport UK’s refund adjustment on the basis of the contents of the writ petition filed in the matter.
The bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in the case observed and has set aside the action of department in adjusting the amount of Rs. 6,27,20,736 as it has been stated under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act and the matter is to be remanded back to the concerned authority in order to decide afresh, within the period of four weeks.
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee has challenged the order by which a sum of Rs. 6,27,20,736, which was to be payable to the petitioner and the same was to be adjusted by the respondent against the demand for a prior period i.e., the Assessment Year 2019-2020. Therefore, the intimation for proposing an adjustment as it has been stated under section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 03.11.2012, wherein the petitioner is given the period of thirty days to respond as to why such an adjustment needs to be made in the matter.
It has also been contended by the petitioner in the case that it being impermissible for the respondents in order to make any adjustment for the dues which pertains to the Assessment Year 2019-2020, as the demand in respect of the assessment year is stayed in terms of an order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
It has also been pointed out by the petitioner in the case that the respondents’ online portal on 15.11.2022 also reflected that the demand remained.
The court observed that the petitioner was afforded thirty days to respond to the notice explaining why the adjustment for an amount of 6,27,20,736 should not be made against the demand outstanding for the Assessment Year 2019–2020. Thus, the respondent proceeded to adjust the amount issue a refund for the balance amount on 17.11.2021. The petitioner in the plea also claimed that it was entitled to receive the entire refund for an amount of Rs. 31,21,36,560 without any adjustment as it has been stated under Section 245 of the Act.
Further, the department contended before the court that the intimation made under Section 143(1) indicates that there being ‘no response’ from the petitioner in the plea.
The court in the case observed and has directed that the authority considers the contents of the petition as the petitioner’s response pursuant to the intimation dated 03.11.2012.
The counsel, Piyush Kaushik appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Aseem Chawla represented the Respondent.
