Grace Associates v. UOI
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported High Court order directs immediate release of long-pending refunds with accumulated section 244A interest and criticises the unexplained 'system issue' relied upon by the department.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 237; 244A
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability: The reported High Court order directs immediate release of long-pending refunds with accumulated section 244A interest and criticises the unexplained 'system issue' relied upon by the department.
Material facts and background
---Mr. Harjot Singh Alang for Petitioner. Ms. Mamta Omle for Respondents-Revenue. Ms. Kanchan V. Bhatkande, ITO 20(1)(1), Mumbai present. ---CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED : 23rd APRIL 2024 P.C. : 1.
Bhatkande affirmed on 20th April 2024 in which it is admitted that there is refund of Rs.2,16,950/- for A.Y. 2006-07, Rs.2,55,340/- for A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs.3,04,865 for A.Y. 2009-10 totaling to Rs.7,77,165/- payable to petitioner.
according to the officer “due to system issue”, the refund remained to be issued. What was the system issue nobody knows. It only reflects clear negligence of the officer including the person who has filed this affidavit. Ms.Omle to a query posed by the court stated that this officer took charge of this desk sometime in 2022.
in the process of issue by CPC and respondents are constantly keeping follow up with the CPC for release of refund so that the refund will be released at the earliest. We find it rather strange that only on 17 th April 2024 the order giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for A.Y. 2009-10 has been passed and the officer states that they have been constantly keeping follow up with CPC for release of refund. Nothing is annexed to the affidavit as to when this constant follow up was made and why within three days constant follow up was required.
entire amount of refund together with interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) will be credited to the account of petitioner not later than 10.30 a.m. on 30 th April 2024. Respondents are also directed that if the amount is not so credited, on 30 th April 2024 at 2.30 p.m. respondent shall bring cheque in favour of petitioner for the entire amount of refund together with accumulated interest under Section 244A of the Act upto 29th April 2024. Not later than 29th April 2024 the calculation as to how the interest has been worked out will also be provided to petitioner’s advocate.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
in the process of issue by CPC and respondents are constantly keeping follow up with the CPC for release of refund so that the refund will be released at the earliest. We find it rather strange that only on 17 th April 2024 the order giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for A.Y. 2009-10 has been passed and the officer states that they have been constantly keeping follow up with CPC for release of refund. Nothing is annexed to the affidavit as to when this constant follow up was made and why within three days constant follow up was required.
Operative decision and relief
according to the officer “due to system issue”, the refund remained to be issued. What was the system issue nobody knows. It only reflects clear negligence of the officer including the person who has filed this affidavit. Ms.Omle to a query posed by the court stated that this officer took charge of this desk sometime in 2022.
in the process of issue by CPC and respondents are constantly keeping follow up with the CPC for release of refund so that the refund will be released at the earliest. We find it rather strange that only on 17 th April 2024 the order giving effect to the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for A.Y. 2009-10 has been passed and the officer states that they have been constantly keeping follow up with CPC for release of refund. Nothing is annexed to the affidavit as to when this constant follow up was made and why within three days constant follow up was required.
entire amount of refund together with interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) will be credited to the account of petitioner not later than 10.30 a.m. on 30 th April 2024. Respondents are also directed that if the amount is not so credited, on 30 th April 2024 at 2.30 p.m. respondent shall bring cheque in favour of petitioner for the entire amount of refund together with accumulated interest under Section 244A of the Act upto 29th April 2024. Not later than 29th April 2024 the calculation as to how the interest has been worked out will also be provided to petitioner’s advocate.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. The operative result is classified as Interim refund directions: credit with section 244A interest by30 April 2024, failing which cheque to be produced; matter stood over. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 237, 244A.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: ---Mr.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2006-07 & 2008-09 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Grace Associates?
The reported High Court order directs immediate release of long-pending refunds with accumulated section 244A interest and criticises the unexplained 'system issue' relied upon by the department.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
---Mr. Harjot Singh Alang for Petitioner. Ms.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
according to the officer “due to system issue”, the refund remained to be issued. What was the system issue nobody knows. It only reflects clear negligence of the officer including the person who has filed this affidavit.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. The operative result is classified as Interim refund directions: credit with section 244A interest by30 April 2024, failing which cheque to be produced; matter stood over. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 237, 244A. The relevant statutory version for AY 2006-07 & 2008-09 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 237 — 237 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 244A — 244A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 237, 244A and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Refund delayed due to system issue; interest and officer accountability. The operative result is classified as Interim refund directions: credit with section 244A interest by30 April 2024, failing which cheque to be produced; matter stood over. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending |
|---|---|
| Pages | 2 |
| SHA-256 | 6dbea2014bfa372f2584e5f95c5d2fa284cf4cc8f06de5052795d28faf11231e |
| Local document URL | Open the packaged local document |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |
Related Finin2min guidance
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 68