At the Delhi High Court on a slightly humid afternoon, the courtroom saw a visibly frustrated petitioner, Santosh Kumar Suri, as the Bench questioned the Income Tax Department over a two-year delay in giving effect to an appellate order. The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain delivered its order on 30 October 2025, pulling up the tax authorities for what the Court called an “inexplicable delay” in complying with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s directive.
Background
Suri had filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2016-17, declaring an income of ₹33,64,160. The return underwent scrutiny, followed by an assessment order dated 25 December 2018, which led to a tax demand of ₹36,85,243. The amount was duly deposited.
Dissatisfied with parts of the assessment, Suri approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In December 2019, the CIT(A) partly allowed his appeal and directed the assessing officer to correctly compute the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement for a property that was partly inherited and partly purchased. The Tribunal later upheld that direction in January 2023, citing earlier rulings that indexation should count from when the previous owner held the property.
Despite this clarity, the ITAT’s order remained unimplemented for more than nine months well beyond the statutory timeline under Section 153(3).
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Bench appeared unimpressed with the Department’s justifications. Justice Singh remarked that it was “only after the writ petition has been filed that the Income Tax Department has got activated,” noting that reminders from the petitioner had gone unanswered for months.
The Court also highlighted a pattern: no decisive action was taken between January 2023 and the filing of the writ petition in September 2025. The Department issued notices only after the matter came before the Court. The assessing officer eventually passed a revised computation order on 14 October 2025 almost two years after the Tribunal’s directions.
“The bench observed, ‘The concerned officials ought to have taken up this matter with alacrity, which they have failed to do.’”
Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Department must pay statutory interest at 3% under Section 244(1A), as the refund was wrongfully withheld. The Court appeared to agree, noting that such interest was not optional but mandated by law.
Decision
In a firm directive, the Court ordered the Income Tax Department to credit the full amount of ₹36,85,243 to the petitioner along with statutory interest applicable under Section 244(1A) within one week.
The Bench added a pointed warning: if the refund and interest were not deposited within the stipulated period, the responsible tax officer must personally appear before the Court on the next date of hearing—15 December 2025. With that, the matter was listed for compliance.
The order ended with the unmistakable tone of judicial impatience, signaling that administrative lethargy would not be tolerated, especially when a taxpayer’s money had been held back for years.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15373/2025
Date of Decision: 30 October 2025