NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the company registered within the territory of India. The petitioner seeks the direction upon the respondent to issue the refund along with the applicable interest in the following factual background:

(2.) On issuance of notice by this Court on 21/2/2022 [Justice J.B.Pardiwala (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Nisha M. Thakore), the respondent had appeared and filed the affidavit-in-reply which is by Mr.Vishwas Shukla, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad, where he has denied all averments, allegations and contentions raised by the petitioner. The allegations of the demand of assessment of assessment year 2012-13 is an excess of 20% of the demand, which has been adjusted according to the respondent, is thoroughly misconceived.

(3.) Affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed by the petitioner contending inter alia that the application for stay dtd. 28/4/2015 has already been preferred by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner expressly requested the predecessor of the respondent to keep the demand in abeyance till the time the Appeal is decided for the assessment year 2012-13. Not reverted to this request, the reference is also made of communication dtd. 15/6/2015 requesting the predecessor to rectify the patent error and also revised the demand.