\n| \n 143(2)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Notice u\/s 143(2) for Scrutiny Assessment u\/s 143(3) of the Act shall be served on Assessee within 6 months from the end of financial year in which in Return of Income is filed u\/s 139 or in response to Notice u\/s 142(1) of the Act<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Return of Income selected for scrutiny pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) need not required to process u\/s 143(1) of the Act till finalization of Scrutiny Assessment u\/s 143(3) of the Act. However, the Assessing officer has the discretionary power to process the Return u\/s 143(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Suppose, Return of Income for AY 2018-19 is filed on 30\/09\/2018, then notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act for scrutiny Assessment u\/s 143(3) shall be served upon the Assessee on or before 30\/09\/2019. <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n 2.2. The Legislature has the intent to prevent the issue of Refund after processing as the Scrutiny proceedings may result in demand for taxes on finalization of Assessment subsequently. Therefore, sub section (1D) has been inserted in section 143 with effect from 01-07-2012 which provides that, processing of return u\/s 143(1) will not be necessary in a case where notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has already been issued for scrutiny of the return. Further, proviso to such sub section provided that, such return shall be processed before issuance of Order for Scrutiny Assessment u\/s 143(3) of the Act. <\/p>\n 2.3. The entire objective of not processing a return after issuance of a scrutiny notice is that in cases where there is a likelihood of substantial demands, there should not be a compulsion on the Revenue to issue refunds. It is well settled that a non-obstante clause is a legislative device which is employed to give overriding effect to some or all contrary provisions and as such, the operation of a non-obstante clause cannot be limited in any manner and must be given its full effect. The Apex Court<\/strong> in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 116 taxmann.com 393 (SC) has<\/strong> held that; <\/p>\n► Procedure under sub-section (1) of section 143 was summary in nature whereas that under sub-section (2) of section 143 was a regular assessment;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n► If the notice under section 143(2) is issued and served upon the Assessee then, there cannot be any insistence that processing under section 143(1) be completed and refund be made before scrutiny pursuant to notice under section 143(2) is finalized;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n► In case where the proceedings are initiated pursuant to notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 gets more pronounced and emphasized by use of non-obstante clause in sub-section(1D) of section 143 of the Act;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n► In respect of Assessment Years ending on 31-3-2017 or before, if a notice was issued inconformity with requirements stated in section 143(2), it shall not be necessary to process refund under section 143(1) and that requirement to process return shall stand overridden;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n► No separate intimation is required to be given to assessee that because of initiation of proceedings pursuant to notice under section 143(2). Processing of return in terms of section 143(1) would stand deferred till finalization of Scrutiny Assessment. Issuance of notice under sub-section (2) itself is sufficient indication. Section 143(1D) does not contemplate either issuance of any such intimation or further application of mind that processing must be kept in abeyance. It would not, therefore, be proper to read into said provision requirement to send a separate intimation.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n2.4. Provision of section 143(1D) does not mandate to process of the Return of Income u\/s 143(1), in case where notice pursuant to section 143(2) has been issued. This provision does not completely bar the Assessing officer from processing the Return of Income u\/s 143(1) of the Act and issue income tax refund due to the Assessee. A combined reading of sub-section (1D) of section 143 would demonstrate that once a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 is issued, it would be discretionary for the Assessing Officer to process the return under section 143(1). The time limit envisaged in the further proviso to sub-section (1) would not apply but that the same can be done only before issuance of the order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act. However, the Department is always reluctant to process the Return u\/s 143(1) of the Act in a case where notice u\/s 143(2) has already been issued,and it does not matter even in the case of a genuine tax payer having claim of Refund year after year. This attitude of the Department creates a geunine doubt about its intention and gives an impression that such a course is a part of larger design which has been delibrately made to deny the legitimate due refund to the concerned assessee. It is the fact that, the income tax refund is due to the Assessee is subject to interest u\/s 244A of the Act @ 6% per annum and is also taxable in the hands of Assessee. However, the rate of interest on financial assistance from banks & other financial institutions is more than twice of the rate of interest prescribed u\/s 244A of the Act. In this context, provision of section 143(1D) of the Act had been proved as draconian for small and medium enterprises which causes multiple financial injuries on account of anomaly in the rate of interest on income tax refund and rate of interest charged by the lending institutions and various other parameters. <\/p>\n 2.5. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Corrtech International (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2017] 86 taxmann.com 156 (Gujarat) <\/strong>has held that;<\/p>\n► Mere issuance of notice under section 143(2) claiming extended period for processing refund under section 143(1), would not be sufficient to withhold refund.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n► It would be wholly inequitable for the Assessing Officer to merely sit over the petitioner’s request for refund citing the availability of time upto the last date of framing the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. At least once the time limit envisaged in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143 is over without the Assessing Officer processing the return under sub-section (1) and even though notice under sub-section(2) of section 143 may have been issued, the Assessing Officer, by all reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions would be expected to respond to the assessee’s request for either granting refund or indicating that in terms of the adjustments impermissible under sub-section (1) of section 143, such refund or part thereof was not available to the assessee. The interpretation of the Revenue that once a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 is issued, the suspension of the refund arising out of the return filed by the assessee would be automatic and till the passing of the order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 cannot be accepted. The reasonable interpretation of the statute and the situation in such a case would be, to expect the Assessing Officer to take up an expeditious disposal of the processing of return under sub-section (1) of section 143 at least once the assessee requests for release of the refund, and send as an intimation to the assessee if he wishes to withhold the same.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n3. Discretionary power vested with officers’ of the Department to withhold income tax refund subject to due compliance of procedure:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n3.1. In order to avoid unnecessary delay in payment of income tax refund due to a genuine tax payer till finalization of scrutiny assessment in pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act, the legislature recognised the need tocreate a seperate window which shall serve the purpose of revenue collection as well as payment of income tax refund to genuine tax payer in due course. <\/p>\n 3.2. The Legislature has amended the provision of section 143(1D) of the Act and inserted new section 241A of the Act vide Finance Act, 2017 in order to address the concern of genuine tax payer. Even under the provisions of section 143(ID) before its substitution by the Finance Act of 2017, the court did not approve unjustifiable delay in processing of return and thereby delay the refund of the Assessee arising therefrom. <\/p>\n 3.3. There is no provision for a notice to the Assessee before the Assessing Officer passing an order to withhold the refund for the reasons best known to him. In the context of Chapter XX-C of the Act, in C. B. Gautam v. UOI [1992] 65 Taxman 440 (SC),<\/strong> the Court held that the requirement of a reasonable opportunity being given to the concerned parties before acquiring a property has to be read into the Chapter XX-C. Further, the provision that when an order for purchase is made under section 269UD – reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made. It is a moot point whether the aforesaid principle could apply and the obligation to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard can be read in the provision. However, analogy of the same can be pressed into service.<\/p>\n3.4. Section 241A has since been inserted in the Act and as the notes on clauses explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 provides, in order to address the grievance of delay in issuance of refund in genuine cases which are routinely selected for scrutiny assessment, it was proposed that provisions of section 143(1D) shall ceases to apply in respect of returns furnished for the assessment year 2017-18 and onwards. However, to address the concern of recovery of revenue in doubtful cases, it was directed to insert a new section 241A to provide that, for the returns furnished for assessment year commencing on or after 1-4-2017, where refund of any amount becomes due to the Assessee under section 143(1) shall be withheld by the Assessing officer on fulfilment of following pre-conditions;
\n (a) Refund of any amount becomes due to the Assessee upon processing of return under section 143(1);<\/p>\n (b) The assessment year is from assessment year 2017-18 onwards;<\/p>\n (c) A notice has been issued under section 143(2) in respect of the said return;<\/p>\n (d) The AO is of the opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue;<\/p>\n (e) The AO has formed such opinion having regard to the fact that the notice has been issued under section 143(2);<\/p>\n (f) The AO has obtained previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be;<\/p>\n (g) The AO has recorded the reasons for such withholding in writing;<\/p>\n If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer may withhold the refund up to the date on which the assessment is made.<\/p>\n 3.5. It is consistently observed that, the Assessing officers are not complying with the procedure contemplated u\/s 241A of the Act and withholding the Income Tax Refund without jurisdiction.The procedure for processing Return and determination of Income Tax Refund is performed by the CPC which is prescribed by ITBA-ITR Processing Instruction No. 5 dated 14\/12\/2018. As per the said process, the refund determination is complete immediately after determination of the total income tax and matching of tax credits is completed at CPC System. At this stage, refund determination is communicated by the CPC, Bangalore to AO through ITBA Module. Once the refund is approved\/withheld\/blocked by the AO, CPC will complete the accounting of the record and act accordingly to other processes involved like section 245 of the Act i.e. adjustment of refund determined against the tax arrears due.Now a days, we may have seen that an intimation of Return of Income processed u\/s 143(1) of the Act does contain standardized auto generated communication informing the tax payer that, income tax refund due to the Assessee shall be released as per the provisions of section 241A of the Act. Language of standardized auto generated communication is reproduced hereunder for the sake of understanding; <\/p>\n ‘The Refund determined u\/s 143(1) in this intimation, if any along with interest u\/s 244A and subject to adjustment of arear demand, if any u\/s 245 will be released as per provision of section 241A of Income Tax Act, 1961 as determined by the Assessing officer’<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n3.6. It might be possible that, the Assessing officer has withheld the income tax refund determined u\/s 143(1) of the Act in terms of section 241A of the Act only in case where such Return of Income had already been subjected to scrutiny assessment pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act. In such cases intimation u\/s 143(1) of the Act simply contain above mentioned standardized auto generated communication. The Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2019] 111 taxmann.com 451 (Bombay) <\/strong>held that; <\/p>\nIn this background, firstly it is to be observed that the auto-generated communication which contained note of withholding of the refund in terms of section 241A, does not satisfy any of legal tests for passing said order of withholding refund of assessee as same order was not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so and secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication and, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. When section 241A confers the Assessing Officer with wide discretionary powers and at the same time, puts conditions for exercise of such powers, such exercise under no circumstances can be taken over by computerized system. The very essence of passing of the order under section 241A is application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the issues which are germane for withholding the refund on the basis of statutory prescription contained in the said section. Therefore, the practice of the department in sending such auto-generated response to the Assessee for withholding the returns is to be deprecated.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n3.7. The Delhi High Court in the case of Maple Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax <\/strong>[2019] <\/strong>112 taxmann.com 199 (<\/strong>Delhi<\/strong>) <\/strong>held that;<\/p>\n“The power of the AO has been outlined and defined in terms of the Section 241A and he must proceed giving due regard to the fact that the refund has been determined. The fact that notice under section 143(2) has been issued, would obviously be a relevant factor, but that cannot be used to ritualistically deny refunds. The AO is required to apply its 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 AO 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 under section 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 under section 143(2), it is not a sufficient ground to withhold refund under section 241A and the order denying refund on this ground alone would be laconic.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nThe AO is duty bound to process the refund where the same is 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 AO has to be exercised judiciously and is conditioned and channelized. The AO 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"<\/em><\/strong>. The issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has often been cited as a ground for withholding of refund and it would also be relevant to note the views of the court in pre-amendment scenario. In Tata Teleservices v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2016] 69 taxmann.com 226\/240 Taxman 182\/386 ITR 30<\/strong>, it was held that in the event a notice is issued under section 143(2), it will be a matter of discretion of the concerned AO whether he should process the return or not. The relevant portion is extracted as under; <\/p>\n"23.The real effect of the instruction is to curtail the discretion of the AO by ‘preventing’ him from processing the return, where notice has been issued to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act. If the legislative intent was that the return would not be processed at all once a notice is issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act, then the legislature ought to have used express language and not the expression "shall not be necessary". By the device of issuing an instruction in purported exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Act, the CBDT cannot proceed to interpret or instruct the income tax department to ‘prevent’ the issue of refund.In the event that a notice is issued to the Assessee under Section 143 (2) of the Act, it will be a matter the discretion of the concerned AO whether he should process the return."<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nThe judgment in the case of Pulp N’Pack (P.) Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer [MANU\/AP\/0094\/2009]<\/strong>, where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<\/strong> dealt with the normative range of circumstances that could be considered as having "adverse effect on the revenue"<\/em><\/strong> within the meaning of the said expression in section 33C of the Andhra Pradesh General Services Tax Act, 1957. It was held therein that,every refund where dues consequent on an order giving rise to a refund cannot be considered as adversely affecting the revenue<\/em><\/strong>. ? Looking at the ratio of decisions in Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 306 (Guj)<\/strong>, Shreyansh Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 101 Taxman 498\/[2001] 252 ITR 544 (Punj. &Har.)<\/strong> and Gannon Dunkerley& Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [2003] 133 STC 534 (Orissa)<\/strong>, the Court observed as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n"67. Pasayat, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Gannon Dunkerley& Co. Ltd. (supra) observed that an opinion means a judgment, belief or conviction resulting from what one think on a particular question. This should be passed on grounds short of proof. If one is to form an opinion and the opinion is to govern, he must form it himself on such reasons and grounds as seen good to him. Mere filing of an appeal or pendency of further proceedings under the Act cannot per se be a ground for withholding a refund. The opinion that grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue must be formed. In the facts of the case before it the Orissa Division Bench in Gannon Dunkerley& Co. Ltd. concluded that the revenue\/assessing authority must be in possession of all relevant material which are relevant for taking a decision (to withhold the refund). Financial stability, creditworthiness are relevant considerations when considering the question whether grant of refund would adversely affect the revenue, observed the Bench.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n68. In Shreyans Industries Ltd. (supra) the court observed that the singular fact that an order (giving rise to a refund) is under challenge either before the Tribunal or the High Court is not a ground to withhold the refund or to reach a conclusion that the refund would adversely affect the revenue. The court found that while a huge amount was withheld on the mere ground of a pending appeal before the Tribunal, no material was available on record which justified withholding of the refund. The court observed that the petitioner was not found to be in default of any payment of income tax dues or even in the matter of filing of returns. Consequently the order withholding the refund was quashed.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n69. From the cases that come before this Court involving exercise of the power Under Section 33C of the Andhra Pradesh General Services Tax Act, 1957, there is apparent, as in this batch of cases, a mechanical approach to the exercise of the structured grant of discretionary power. Often, an order withholding the refund merely reproduces the statutory phrase that grant of refund would adversely affect the revenue."<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n3.8. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited v. Union of India and others <\/strong>CWP<\/strong> No. 2698 of 2020<\/strong>allowed the petition and held that; <\/strong><\/p>\n“There are no reasons even in the record to support the finding that refund would adversely affect the revenue and the note in approval file that there was demand of <\/em><\/strong>`<\/em><\/strong>5 corresponding has been found not good enough to withhold the refund of more than <\/em><\/strong>`<\/em><\/strong>300 crores. Even the officials present in Court were not in a position to cite any material or reason with regard to adverse effect of refund on revenue, it would be an exercise in futility to give another opportunity. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue refund for the assessment year 2017-18 and 2018-19 along with statutory interest not later than within four weeks from receipt of certified copy”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n“Before parting, it is pertinent to note that in the present case and also from number of cases, it is evident that procedure for refund and withholding of refund is often being used as delaying tactics for various reasons including window dressing of collection of revenue. The method adopted is a short sighted vision. Apart from harassment to the Assessee, it results in paying interest on the delayed amount of refund putting further burden on the exchequer. It cannot be lost sight of that trade and commerce is a life blood of the system, if the excess amount deposited as tax is not refunded to the entrepreneur\/Assessee, it has effect on the liquidity and business. There cannot be second opinion that the revenue collection and securing the interest of the revenue is of great importance, at the same time the revenue is to be collected like an apiarist extracts honey from beehive without destroying it. Considering the facts that in spite of there being no justifiable reason as per provisions of the statute, yet the refund was withheld for which the petitioner would be entitled to statutory interest, we deem it appropriate to further consider if costs should be imposed on the officer(s) (in their personal capacity) and consequently issue notice to Mr. Krinwant Sahay, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak and Mr. DipinGoel, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Gurugram to show cause why this should not be done and for this limitedpurpose, adjourn the matter to 28.4.2020. Let them be served through the counsel”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n4. Conclusion:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n4.1. It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the officers in Department are reluctant to issue refunds and the mechanism laid down in the Income tax Act in this regard is on paper only. The legislative intent is clear and explicit. The processing of return cannot be kept in abeyance, merely because a notice hast been issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Post amendment, sub-section (1D) of section 143 is inapplicable to returns furnished for the AY commencing on or after 1st Day of April 2017. The only provision that empowers the AO to withhold the refund is section 241A. Now the refunds can be withheld only in accordance with the said provision. The aforesaid 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, the provisions of the section do not allow unbriddle powers to the AO in each and every such case. The section envisages that the refund could be witheld if the issuance thereof would adversely affect the revenue due to ensuing scrutiny of the case. However, for such witholding the AO has to take prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax.<\/p>\n 4.2. It is to be noted that the condition of obtaining previous approval of the Commissioner is one of the conditions for withholding of refund and is in the nature of procedural prescription, legislatively intended to provide a check on possible arbitrary exercise of discretion by the assessing or licensing authority, as the case may be, by enjoining that the exercise of discretion be preceded by the previous approval of a higher authority. The other structural condition as to the prior approval of a higher authority is, as already observed, legislatively intended to operate as a check on what would otherwise have been the sole discretion of the assessing authority. The provisions of Section 33C of the Andhra Pradesh General Services Tax Act, 1957 are in parimateria with Section 241 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (omitted by the Finance Act 2001, w.e.f. 1.1.2001). Another legislative intendment of the prescription (that the order must be preceded by the approval of higher authority), appears to be that the assessing authority ought not exclusively be conferred the discretion, as the exercise of such discretion in the event of the eventual success of the Assessee would result the exchequer with the liability to interest for the period the refund is withheld. Therefore, Income Tax Refund due to the Assessee determined u\/s 143(1) of the Act which is withheld by the Assessing officer u\/s 241A of Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act without recording justifiable reasons and approved in rotuine manner at the level of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax shall tantamount to exercise of power without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. <\/p>\n \n\n| Disclaimer: <\/strong>The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without express written permission of itatonline.org<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CAs Nidhi Surana, Vidhan Surana and Palak Bhatt have pointed out that Assessing Officers are reluctant to issue refunds and that the mechnism laid down in the Act is only on paper. They have explained, with reference to the judgements on the point, that the action of withholding refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons and approved in a routine manner by the PCIT tantamounts to exercise of power without jurisdiction and is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law<\/p>\n Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} | |
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-content\/uploads\/Nidhi-Surana.png\")
CAs Nidhi Surana, Vidhan Surana and Palak Bhatt have pointed out that Assessing Officers are reluctant to issue refunds and that the mechnism laid down in the Act is only on paper. They have explained, with reference to the judgements on the point, that the action of withholding refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u\/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons and approved in a routine manner by the PCIT tantamounts to exercise of power without jurisdiction and is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law<\/strong><\/p>\n