Non-Grant of Partial Advance Tax Credit on Predecessor’s PAN: Delhi HC Directs Manual Refund Within Three Weeks [Read Order]
The Court recorded that a proposal for a paper refund and marking the demand as ‘stayed’ was under consideration with the Chief Commissioner and clarified that if the action was not completed within the stipulated period, the petitioner could seek revival of the writ petition.
The High Court of Delhi, directed the tax authorities to manually grant credit of partial advance tax paid on the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the petitioner’s predecessor within three weeks.
Landmark Property Development CO Ltd,petitioner-assessee, had filed a writ petition regarding the non-grant of credit of partial advance tax paid on the PAN of its predecessor entity. On the earlier date of hearing, the Court had recorded that the counsel for the respondent sought time to resolve the issue.
Subsequently, on the next date, the respondent’s counsel placed before the Court an email dated 15.09.2025 from the DCIT. The email stated that the Systems Directorate had expressed its technical limitation and inability to allow partial credit of advance tax challans in the hands of the demerged entity. It was advised that the issue be handled manually.
A proposal had accordingly been submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), New Delhi, on 01.09.2025, seeking approval to issue a paper refund by manually granting credit of the partial advance tax. It was further noted that manual handling would not remove the demand reflected in the CPC portal, and therefore, a proposal had also been made to mark the demand as ‘stayed’ to prevent adjustment of future refunds.
The email indicated that the matter was under consideration with the Chief Commissioner and was expected to be resolved soon, requesting two weeks’ time for suitable settlement.
Justice V.Kameshwar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar disposed of the petition after recording the respondent’s stand and directed the follow-up action to be completed within three weeks. It clarified that if the action was not taken within this period, the petitioner could seek revival of the writ petition. Pending applications, if any, were dismissed as infructuous.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
