46. Maple Logistic P.
Ltd. vs. Principal CIT; [2020] 420 ITR 258
(Del.) Date of order: 14th
October, 2019 A.Ys.: 2017-18 and
2018-19
Refund – Withholding
of refund – Sections 143(2) and 241A of ITA, 1961 – Discretion of A.O. – Scope
of section 241A – A.O. must apply his mind before withholding refund – Mere
issue of notice for scrutiny assessment for a later assessment year not a
ground for withholding refund
The petitioner, by way of writ petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the income tax
amount on account of excess deduction of tax at source in respect of the
assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and other consequential directions to
adjust the outstanding amount of tax deducted at source and the goods and
services tax payable by the petitioner-company against the pending refund
amount without charging of any interest for the delayed payments. The Delhi
High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:
‘i) U/s 241A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the
legislative intent is clear and explicit. The processing of return cannot be
kept in abeyance merely because a notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act.
Post-amendment, sub-section (1D) of section 143 is inapplicable to returns
furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after 1st April,
2017. The only provision that empowers the A.O. to withhold the refund in a
given case at present is section 241A. Now refunds can be withheld only in
accordance with this provision. The provision is applicable to such cases where
refund is found to be due to the assessee under the provisions of sub-section
(1) of section 143, and also a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of
section 143 in respect of such returns. However, this does not mean that in
every case where a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 143
and the case of the assessee is selected for scrutiny assessment, the
determined refund has to be withheld. The Legislature has not intended to
withhold the refunds just because scrutiny assessment is pending. If such had
been the intent, section 241A would have been worded so. On the contrary,
section 241A enjoins the A.O. to process the determined refunds, subject to the
caveat envisaged u/s 241A.
ii) The language of section 241A envisages that
the provision is not resorted to merely for the reason that the case of the
assessee is selected for scrutiny assessment. Sufficient checks and balances
have been built in under the provision and have to be given due consideration
and meaning. An order u/s 241A should be transparent and reflect due
application of mind. The A.O. is duty-bound to process the refunds where they
are determined. He cannot deny the refund in every case where a notice has been
issued under sub-section (2) of section 143. The discretion vested with the
A.O. has to be exercised judiciously and is conditioned and channelised. Merely
because a scrutiny notice has been issued that should not weigh with the A.O.
to withhold the refund. The A.O. has to apply his mind judiciously and such
application of mind has to be found in the reasons which are to be recorded in
writing. He must make an objective assessment of all the relevant circumstances
that would fall within the realm of ‘adversely affecting the Revenue’. The
power of the A.O. has been outlined and defined in terms of section 241A and he
must proceed giving due regard to the fact that the refund has been determined.
iii) The fact that notice u/s 143(2) has been
issued would obviously be a relevant factor, but that cannot be used to
ritualistically deny refunds. The A.O. is required to apply his mind and
evaluate all the relevant factors before deciding the request for refund of
tax. Such an exercise cannot be treated to be an empty formality and requires
the A.O. to take into consideration all the relevant factors. The relevant
factors, to state a few, would be the prima facie view on the grounds
for the issuance of notice u/s 143(2), the amount of tax liability that the
scrutiny assessment may eventually result in vis-a-vis the amount of tax refund
due to the assessee, the creditworthiness or financial standing of the assessee,
and all factors which address the concern of recovery of revenue in doubtful
cases. Therefore, merely because a notice has been issued u/s 143(2), it is not
a sufficient ground to withhold refund u/s 241A and the order denying refund on
this ground alone would be laconic. Additionally, the reasons which are to be
recorded in writing have to also be approved by the Principal Commissioner, or
Commissioner, as the case may be, and this should be done objectively.
iv) The reasons relied upon by the Revenue to
justify the withholding of refund were lacking in reasoning. Except for
reproducing the wording of section 241A of the Act, they did not state anything
more. The order withholding the refund was not valid.’
