ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Ananya Kapoor, learned counsel representing Mr. T.Pradyoth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Respondents to pass the correct and necessary appeal effect orders in quantum proceeding in accordance with law and issue the quantum refund due to the Petitioner for A.Y. 2010-11, amounting to Rs.10,63,69,739/- being the balance interest liability due under section 244A and section 244(1A) on the principal amount of Rs.13,68,09,954/- (refunded on 30.07.2025) in a time bound manner and to pass such other order or orders including costs of this Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Department has filed a counter affidavit. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made therein and specifically those at sub-paragraphs of paragraph No.17, which is extracted hereunder: “17. In reply to Ground C, it is respectfully submitted that although it has taken time in the processing of the refund, every possible effort has been made to complete the process at the earliest. It is further submitted that the balance pending refunds have already been processed by CPC-TDS, initially on 10.10.2025 and subsequently on 30.10.2025, and will be credited to the petitioner’s bank account shortly, upon resolution of the current bank account error in the refund banker system by the petitioner. The time taken was neither intentional nor arbitrary but occasioned by bona fide administrative and procedural requirements as outlined below, including the delay from petitioner in complying to a few of these procedures, as stated above. i) Verification of Bank and Challan Details: The respondents conducted a thorough validation of the petitioner’s bank account and verified each challan claimed for refund to ensure accuracy. This included confirming challan consumption status, proof of payment, and verifying that credit had not already been allowed outside the system. i) Verification of Bank and Challan Details: The respondents conducted a thorough validation of the petitioner’s bank account and verified each challan claimed for refund to ensure accuracy. This included confirming challan consumption status, proof of payment, and verifying that credit had not already been allowed outside the system. ii) Assessment of Outstanding Demands: A comprehensive review was undertaken to verify any outstanding demands linked to the petitioner’s TAN: HYDT00554B, as well as all associated TANs and PAN: AAACT2438A across jurisdictions. As this office has jurisdiction only over the Hyderabad TAN, formal communications were issued to all 19 TAN Assessing Officers and the PAN Assessing Officer across India to obtain updated demand positions. iii) Administrative Transition: The present incumbent of Respondent No. 1 assumed charge on 02.05.2025 following annual transfers and, upon taking charge, initiated a detailed review of all pending refund matters concerning the petitioner. A communication was issued to the petitioner seeking confirmation of the current demand status against all associated TANs and the PAN. iv) Submission of Information by the Petitioner: In response, the petitioner, vide letter dated 28.05.2025, stated that most demands were not enforceable, except for a demand of Rs.88,09,385/- against sister TAN CHET0274B, for which a stay was pending. The petitioner subsequently furnished the stay order issued by ITO (TDS), Ward-3(3), Chennai, vide Order No. C.No. Stay of Demand/(TDS) Ward-3(3)/2025-26 dated 18.06.2025. v) Processing of Rectification and Refund Application: Following verification, all other demands (aggregating to approximately Rs.280 crores) were reflected as “STAYED” on the TRACES portal. Thereafter, rectification orders were passed on 20.06.2025, and the Form 26B refund application was processed and submitted on 26.06.2025 for approval and release by CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad, in line with the prescribed guidelines. vi) Issuance of Refund and Pending Interest Component: A refund of Rs.14,22,82,352/- for A.Y. 2010-11, including interest of Rs. 54,72,398/-, was issued by CPC-TDS on 30.07.2025. The balance interest amount of Rs.10,26,07,466/-, as determined in the rectification order, was separately processed by CPC-TDS on 10.10.2025 and transmitted to the refund banker for credit to the petitioner’s account. However, the refund request was rejected twice, the latest on 30.10.2025, due to “Invalid bank account details - Account not available in Core System.” The issue has been communicated to the petitioner, and the refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system. However, the refund request was rejected twice, the latest on 30.10.2025, due to “Invalid bank account details - Account not available in Core System.” The issue has been communicated to the petitioner, and the refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system. In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the processing of the refund involved multiple statutory checks, jurisdictional dependencies, and system-level validations, which were duly complied with by the Respondent in a timely and diligent manner. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the refund of Rs.76,73,028/- determined for A.Y. 2007-08 vide the Order Giving Effect passed in September 2024 was processed on 10.10.2025, and a manual cheque was issued to the authorised banker, pending this writ petition. The additional checks and procedures pertaining to the manual processing of the refunds for the AY’s prior to the AY 2008-09 were followed in this case for a quite some time and finally the manual cheques could be issued on 10.10.2025. Further, as stated above, the pending refund pertaining to the interest amount of Rs.11,88,52,898/- for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.?. 2010-11 is also under process by the CPC-TDS/Refund Banker. It is submitted that CPC-TDS has completed the processing of the said refund request on 10.10.2025 and has forwarded the case to the refund banker for credit of the amount to the Petitioner’s bank account. However, the refund request was rejected twice, the latest rejection being 30.10.2025, due to ‘Invalid bank account details’, showing error “Account not available in Core System”. The same is communicated to the petitioner and the CPC-TDS is trying to resolve the issue with refund banker. The refund is expected to be credited to the petitioner’s bank account shortly, upon resolution of the current bank account error in the refund banker system.” 4. The stand of the respondents from paragraph No.17 as extracted above shows that a balance interest amount of Rs.10,26,07,466/- is due to the petitioner as determined in the rectification order. However, due to invalid bank account details, the refund request was rejected twice. This issue has been communicated to the petitioner. The refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant bank details have already been supplied to the respondents. 6. However, due to invalid bank account details, the refund request was rejected twice. This issue has been communicated to the petitioner. The refund will be credited immediately upon correction of the bank account details in the refund banker system. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relevant bank details have already been supplied to the respondents. 6. Let it be supplied to the 3 rd respondent, if not supplied already. 7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that since the claim for refund is not disputed by the Department, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction upon them to pay the amount of Rs.10,26,07,466/- within a time bound manner. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that if the account details of the petitioner have been furnished, the refund amount would be credited to its account within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the remaining interest amount, the petitioner would be making a representation to the Assessing Officer. 9. If such a representation is made, it shall be considered, in accordance with law. 10. In view of the stand of the respondents, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of. Let the admissible refund amount be credited to the petitioner’s account as against the details provided by it within a period of four weeks from today. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.