Ashish Chopra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of a Notice under Section 221(1) dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P-21), being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing demand reference 2010200910051729220T in AY 2009- 10, demand reference 2011201010044742040T in AY 2010-11, and demand reference 2012201110016226570T in AY 2011-12 (Annexure P-17), created by the Respondents being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the following adjustments of refunds due to the Petitioner against the demand for Assessment Year 2009-10, being illegal, and bad in law and directing the refund of the adjustments with applicable interest under the Act: a) Adjustment of refund of Rs 32,120/- for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 02.04.2016 as reflected in Form 26AS for AY 2009-10 (Annexure P-8); b) Adjustment of refund of Rs 49,630/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 04.05.2019 as communicated vide intimation dated 19.01.2019 (Annexure P-11); c) Adjustment of refund of Rs 12,850/for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 11.10.2019 as communicated vide intimation dated 29.10.2019 (Annexure P-14); d) Adjustment of refund of Rs 1,17,860/- for Assessment Year 2024-25 on 30.10.2024 as reflected in Form 26AS for AY 2009-10 (Annexure P-8);

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the

Respondents to extinguish the demand created against the Petitioner for AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 in terms of section 205 of the Act;

(v) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the

Respondents adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for the A Y s 2009-10, 2010- 11, and 2011-12…”

2. Today, Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned SSC for the respondent has placed before us an E-mail dated 03.09.2025 received by him from the ACIT, Circle-70(1), Delhi which reads as under: “... In this regard, it is stated that demands for AYs 2009-10, 2020-11 and 2011-12 stayed in ITBA-Recovery. Now no refund will be adjusted against demands for AYs 2009-10, 2020-11 and 2011-12. Further, refund adjusted against the demands for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, will be issued to the assessee.”

3. A copy thereof has been given to the counsel for the petitioner who stated that though the same satisfies the petitioner, his prayer is also that the demand shown on the portal be removed. He refers to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 70 1 Delhi & Anr. W.P.(C) 2490/2025, wherein this Court has in paragraphs NO. 4 to 6 has stated as under:

4. Mr. Aggarwal states that the follow-up action in terms of aforesaid communication shall be taken within six weeks as an outer limit.

5. It is made clear that as the amount is not recoverable from the Assessee, the same shall be not depicted on the portal and shall be be removed forthwith.

6. The petition is disposed of.

7. The pending application has become infructuous. It is dismissed as such.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J