JUDGMENT 1. After this Petition was heard on the earlier occasion and today, Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 says that the Writ Petition can be disposed off in terms of a communication/copy of the letter dated 17th July, 2018 Annexure-A to the affidavit in reply, running page 253 of the paper book. That letter reads as under:- Date: 17/07/2018 "To, M/s. Vodafone India Ltd (M/s. Vodafone Essar Ltd) Peninsula Corporate Park Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai- 4000013 PAN:AAACJ 5332B Sir, Sub:Refund Processing of Vodafone under section 143 (1) from A. Y. 2104-15 to A. Y. 2016-17. Ref.:Your letter dated 04.06.2018. Kindly refer the above, Vide letter dated 04.06.2018, you have filed an application for processing the return of the asesee company from AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18 and to issue the refunds. The refunds claimed as per returns of the company are as under: Sr.No. A. Y. Refund claimed as per return 1 2014-15 Rs.204.43 Crores 2 2015-16 Rs.210.07 Crores 3 2016-17 Rs.180.09 Crores 4 2017-18 Rs.137.26 Crores 2. Moreover it is observed that the scrutiny assessment of the assessee company for A. Y. from A. Y. 2014-15 to A. Y. 2016-17 is pending before undersigned. Under section 143 (1D) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued. Notice under section 143 (2) has been issued for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 143 (1D) the processing of the returns for AY 2014-15, 2015-16,2016-17 is not necessary. It is pertinent to mention here that the returns for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 cannot be processed under section 143(1), as the same are time barred. However, on the request of the you, the return of AY 201617 has been processed and pushed to the CPC for computation which is still pending at the end of the CPC for computation. The right of processing of return for AY 2017-18 is still with CPC and CpC has not pushed the return to the AO for computation. Yours faithfully (Vijay Kumar G. Subrarhmanyam) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2) Mumbai Copy to Addl. CIT-8(3), Mumbai Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai" 2. Preceding that letter, there is an explanation in the affidavit in reply and we would reproduce paragraphs 5, 13 and 39 thereof. They read as under:- "5. Yours faithfully (Vijay Kumar G. Subrarhmanyam) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2) Mumbai Copy to Addl. CIT-8(3), Mumbai Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai" 2. Preceding that letter, there is an explanation in the affidavit in reply and we would reproduce paragraphs 5, 13 and 39 thereof. They read as under:- "5. With respect to the Petitioner''s submissions in paragraph-5, I state and submit that there is no case for issue of any Writ/order for processing of the returns from AY 2014-15 to AY 2016-17 as the scrutiny assessments are pending before the AO and also the fact that the AO has exercised his discretion under Section 143 (ID) not to process the returns considering the fact that substantial demand has been raised on completion of scrutiny assessments for earlier years as mentioned in the earlier paragraph 3.2. However, the rerun of AY 2017-18 is pending with the CPC and the time barring date for processing of the return is 31.03.2019. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this Writ Petition. 13. With respect to the Petitioner''s submissions in paragraph-13, I state and submit that the demand/refund for AY 2014-15 has not crystallized and the same will be determined only on completion of assessment on receipt of directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The petitioner''s claim that the proposed additions in the draft assessment order (which is subjudice before DRP) are largely made on historical covered issues, is not correct. Further as the issue on the merit of the additions is still pending before the ITAT, the Petitioner''s claim of historical covered issues has no merit. With regard to the reliance placed on the decision of Hon''ble High Court in the case of HDFC Bank(354 ITR 77), the decision is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the case of HDFC Bank, there is no dispute that the issue is a covered issue, whereas in the present, the Hon''ble ITAT has held that the disputed issues will be adjudicated in appeal. Hence, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner''s case. With regard to the decision of Hon''ble High court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (377 ITR 281), the case was of adjustment of refunds against demands which were already stayed. Hence, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner''s case. With regard to the decision of Hon''ble High court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (377 ITR 281), the case was of adjustment of refunds against demands which were already stayed. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the case of Northern Coal Fields Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.7.2017 (2017) 85 taxmann.com 78 (SC) , has held that refunds can be adjusted against demand which is stayed. Hence, it is submitted that the decision relied upon by petitioner has no applicability to the facts of this case. 39: With reference to the petitioner''s submissions in Paragraph-39, I state and submit that Under section 143 (1D) of Income Tax Act, 1961, the processing of return shall not be necessary, where a notice under section 143 (2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued. Notice under section 143 (2) has been issued for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Hence, in view of the provisions of Section 143 (1D) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the processing of the returns for AY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 is not necessary. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the returns for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 cannot be processed under section 143 (1) of the Act, as the time for processing the said returns provided under Section 143 (1) of the Act has expired. However, on the request of the assessee, the return of AY 2016-17 has been processed and pushed to the CPC for computation which is still pending at the end of the CPC. The right of processing of return for AY 2017-18 is still with CPC and CPC has not pushed the return to the AO for computation. 3. On summing up the stand consistent with these statements, Mr Mohanty says that the assessment for the year 2014-2015 would be finalized on or before 30th November, 2018. 4. We accept this statement as an undertaking to this Court. 5. Then, it is stated that insofar as assessment year 2015- 2016, the Assessing Officer has time at his disposal to make a draft of the assessment and that time expires on 30th December, 2018. Mr. 4. We accept this statement as an undertaking to this Court. 5. Then, it is stated that insofar as assessment year 2015- 2016, the Assessing Officer has time at his disposal to make a draft of the assessment and that time expires on 30th December, 2018. Mr. Pardiwala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that this would delay the proceedings and the intention of the Revenue is obvious. In the event the whole exercise results in a refund, then, that would not be sanctioned and disbursed because it would always be subject to a further exercise contemplated by Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these defeats the very object and purpose of the enactment. 6. Prima facie, we see some substance in this complaint of Mr. Pardiwala. We do not think that the draft assessment can be delayed and in the manner stated before us. We direct that even the draft assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016 shall be completed by 30th November, 2018. Let the further steps thereafter be taken in accordance with law. 7. The communication, copy of which is at Annexure-A makes interesting reading with regard to assessment year 2016- 2017. It is solemnly stated that the return for this assessment year has been processed but it is pushed to what is stated as and styled as the Centralized Processing Center. That is stated to be forwarded for computation. 8. We fail to understand as to why somebody who is incharge of making and framing assessment, namely, the Assessing Officer can process the return and ordinarily empowered to finalize it as well but must forward it or push it to this center for computation. If computation such a difficult, if not an important task, why it cannot be performed by this Assessing Officer, is not clarified to us at all. It is evident that, after it is pushed to this center, from the center''s communication, copy of which is handed over by Mr. Mohanty dated 7th August, 2018, it is apparent that this center has done nothing in relation to this computation. The said letter dated 7th August, 2018 is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. It may be lying with it and who knows for how long. Mohanty dated 7th August, 2018, it is apparent that this center has done nothing in relation to this computation. The said letter dated 7th August, 2018 is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. It may be lying with it and who knows for how long. It would continue with it until such time as the law permits holding up of the further proceedings or till the last date. We only remind the Revenue of the inherent risk in such an exercise. Far from making things simpler, we are of the opinion that such complications and confusions often prejudice the interest of the Revenue. It can then very well be managed with such centers and officials manning the same that they sit on files and thereafter returns are processed as it is or there is nothing left to be done in relation thereto. They would definitely have to be then accepted in the manner forwarded by the Assessee. That would be indeed prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if not necessarily harassing the Assessee. A balance has to be created and this procedure, cumbersome as it is, does not facilitate the same. In such circumstance, we direct this Centralized Processing Center-ITR to forthwith take a decision and as regards the computation. The decision be taken and communicated to the concerned Assessing Officer within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Any opinion on the merits of the issue would prejudice both sides. We do not think and as rightly urged by Mr. Pardiwala that the whole exercise would necessarily result in either a refund or a demand. We expect the authorities to take a decision and not delay the matters. Even if there is any exercise and warranting an adjustment, there is no reason to delay that, by sitting on the files and forcing the Assessee like the Petitioner to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is as if the authorities wait for a writ Court to issue direction so that they can take and pull files out of the turn and grant necessary reliefs. 10. As far as this aspect is concerned, we express no opinion. We clarify that on merits this Court has neither expressed any view in favour of a refund or against it. 11. 10. As far as this aspect is concerned, we express no opinion. We clarify that on merits this Court has neither expressed any view in favour of a refund or against it. 11. In the light of the above, we hope and trust that the Petitioner would not be required to approach this Court again and again with similar Writ Petitions and certainly not for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. There, it is stated that the time at the disposal of the Assessing Officer is 31st March, 2019, on which date the legal limit comes to an end. Now, that Section 143 (1D) of the I. T. Act, 1963 is not applicable to this return, admittedly, then, we do not think that the Assessing Officer should push the file and pass it from one center to another. 12. We hope and trust that computation does not present great difficulty in the age of computers and calculators. That technology is certainly available at the disposal of the Assessing Officer and he must utilize it. There is none who can dictate to him as to how an assessment should be framed and what assessment order ought to be passed. Hence, we expect him not to delay the proceedings beyond the legal limit in any event but expedite the same, as is now stated on his behalf by Mr. Mohanty. We expedite the said proceeding, as well. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.