$ 38 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2883/2017 MIDREX TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED Petitioner Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Ms. Rubal Maini and Ms. Mehvish Khan, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER % 29.03.2017 CM No. 12596/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. application stands disposed off. W.P.(C) 2883/2017 3. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 4. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for hearing. 5. petitioner is aggrieved that its refund claims for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 have not been so far processed. W.P.(C) 2883/2017 Page 1 of 3 He submits that refunds are on account of TDS deductions made by remitters and that these are legitimate dues. respondent, represented by its counsel on advance notice, submits that petitioner s application is pending before Authority for Advance Rulings ( AAR ) since 2013. In terms of Section 245RR of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), AO would not possess jurisdiction to process any application with respect to pending matters. It is, however, submitted on instructions that refund with respect to AY 2015-16 would be processed and appropriately made in accordance with law and, therefore, direction is issued to AO to process refund claim for that year and make appropriate orders in accordance with law, especially considering directions of this Court in Tata Teleservices Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Anr. (2016) 69 Taxman 226 (Del) and Indus Towers Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.3665/2015, decided on 06.10.2016). Such orders shall be made within four weeks. 6. Court was informed during hearing that there is vacuum in position of Chairmanship in AAR, which had hitherto impeded its functions and that Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17261/2016 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India) by its judgment dated 18.10.2016 had, by way of interim arrangement, directed Member (Judicial) to discharge functions of Chairman of AAR. It is submitted that AAR should be directed to decide petitioner s application, which has remained pending for four years. Court is of view that AAR should consider and make appropriate orders as to whether petitioner s application can be disposed off expeditiously, W.P.(C) 2883/2017 Page 2 of 3 having regard to its pendency for four years. AAR may appropriately consider this request and make order in this regard (i.e. expeditious disposal) within four weeks from today. 7. writ petition is disposed off in above terms. 8. copy of this order be given dasti to parties under signatures of Court Master. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. MARCH 29, 2017 sb W.P.(C) 2883/2017 Page 3 of 3 Midrex Technologies Incorporated v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi