Mandamus cannot compel authorities to issue Form 26A certificates without supporting verifiable data

By | June 1, 2026
0 Comment

Mandamus cannot compel authorities to issue Form 26A certificates without supporting verifiable data

Issue

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a deductor (Airports Authority of India) to execute an Accountant’s Certificate in Form 26A when the underlying physical and digital records required to verify the tax payment data have been destroyed by floods or are irretrievable due to software limitations.

Facts

  • The Parties: The petitioner operated Salem Airport under a licence agreement with the Airports Authority of India (AAI).

  • The Relief Sought: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct AAI’s Executive Director (Finance) to issue the Accountant’s Certificate prescribed in Annexure-A to Form 26A. This certificate was needed to establish that the relevant income was accounted for, thereby relieving the petitioner of “assessee-in-default” consequences under Section 201.

  • AAI’s Defense: AAI submitted that it was physically impossible to verify the claims because:

    • Physical records for the period prior to April 1, 2013, were destroyed during the 2015 floods.

    • Legacy revenue accounting data stored in the old “AIMS” package could not be retrieved after migration to SAP-ERP.

    • The statutory precondition for Form 26A requires the deductor to verify that the specific sums paid were actually included in its taxable income computation, which cannot be done without records.

  • Petitioner’s Evidence: The petitioner relied on Right to Information (RTI) replies to argue that payments were made, and pointed out that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had already remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification.

  • Procedural History: The initial writ petition filed by the licensee was dismissed, prompting the filing of the present review petition.

Decision

  • No Mandamus for Impossible Certification: Held, yes. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to command a public or corporate authority to provide a factual certification when the records upon which that certification must responsibly rest do not exist.

  • RTI Replies Insufficient: Held, yes. The RTI responses relied upon by the petitioner merely acknowledged receipt of generic entries but failed to prove that the specific sums paid by the petitioner were integrated into AAI’s final taxable income computations, nor did they establish that the necessary auditing records were available.

  • ITAT Remand Does Not Bind Third Parties: Held, yes. The ITAT’s order remanding the tax assessment to the Assessing Officer for verification created a duty for the AO, but it did not impose an automatic statutory obligation upon AAI to issue a Form 26A certificate.

  • Review Petition Dismissed: Held, yes. AAI’s inability to retrieve records due to flood destruction and software limitations is a legitimate justification for withholding the certificate. The review petition cannot be used to force compliance when the petitioner failed to pursue the verification route directly before the Assessing Officer during the ITAT remand proceedings. The ruling stands in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Certificates Require Substantiation: Form 26A (and its Annexure-A Accountant’s Certificate) is not a procedural formality that can be claimed as a matter of right; it is a serious factual declaration that requires explicit cross-referencing with financial books.

  • Limits of Writ Jurisdiction: Courts will not issue futile writs. If an authority establishes that the foundational documents required to perform an action have been legally and genuinely destroyed (e.g., via natural disasters like floods), a mandamus will be denied.

  • Proper Forum for Remands: When the ITAT remands a case to the Assessing Officer for checking tax deductions, the assessee must submit alternative secondary evidence (like bank statements or ledger confirmations) directly to the AO for satisfaction, rather than trying to legally force a third-party deductor to reconstruct lost data.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kohinoor Educational Services (P.) Ltd
v.
Union of India*
Sanjeev Narula, J.
W.P.(C)No. 15188 of 2024
CM APPL. 34100 of 2026†
MAY  19, 2026
Jojo Jose and Ms. Sunitha John, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Ira Singh, SPC, Ruchesh Sinha, Aakash Saini, Advs. and Ms. Pinky, G.P. for the Respondent.
ORDER
REVIEW PET. 231/2026
1. The Petitioner seeks review of order dated 28th November, 2024, whereby W.P.(C) 15188/2024 was dismissed. The writ petition had sought a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 i.e., Executive Director (Finance), Airports Authority of India, to issue the Accountant’s Certificate prescribed in Annexure-A to Form 26A under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“IT Act”], in respect of payments allegedly made by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 3 i.e., Airports Authority of India [“AAI”], under the Licence Agreement dated 3rd April, 2009 for use of Salem Airport.
2. The order under review rested on three principal grounds. First, the writ petition had been instituted in 2024 in relation to a Licence Arrangement which had come to an end on 2nd April, 2015. In that light, the claim was held to be barred by delay and laches. Second, AAI had placed before the Court a communication from its tax department stating that physical records for the period prior to 1st April, 2013 were unavailable, having been destroyed during the 2015 floods, and that the revenue accounting prior to migration to SAP-ERP was maintained in an earlier AIMS package from which the relevant details could not be retrieved. Third, the Court noticed the stand of the Respondents that the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the IT Act, which governed issuance of such certificates, became effective only on 1st July, 2012 and thus, for a substantial part of the Petitioner’s claim, the statutory foundation was unavailable.
3. In the order under review, the Court also recorded the stand of AAI that, owing to the non-availability of the relevant records, it could not verify whether the income corresponding to the Petitioner’s payments had been taken into account while computing its taxable income, a necessary precondition for issuance of Form 26A.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the Petitioner preferred an appeal (LPA 652/2025), which the Division Bench dismissed vide order dated 4th November, 2025. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Petition No. 35/2026. By order dated 16th January, 2026, the Division Bench recorded the statement of counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner proposed to file a review petition before the Single Judge by placing reliance on certain RTI replies dated 12th March, 2025 and 7th April, 2025. The Division Bench disposed of the review petition on that statement, expressly recording that it was not interfering with the order dated 4th November, 2025.
5. Once the intra-court appeal against the order dated 28th November, 2024 had been dismissed on merits, the appellate judgment became the final, binding and operative adjudication between the parties and the order of this Court stood merged therein. The principles explained in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala  (SC)/(2000) 6 SCC 359, would, therefore, ordinarily apply. However, since the Petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 16th January, 2026 passed by the Division Bench and arguments have been addressed on the merits of the present review petition, this Court proceeds to examine the matter on merits as well, without resting the dismissal solely on the doctrine of merger. The present review petition must nevertheless satisfy the well-settled parameters governing the exercise of review jurisdiction.
6. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow. A review is not an appeal in disguise, nor an opportunity to reargue the matter on merits or repair omissions in the original proceedings. Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a review may lie on “discovery of new and important matter or evidence” which, despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time of the order, or on account of a “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record”, or for any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue the case on merits or merely because another view of the matter is possible. See: Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 .
7. The Petitioner relies upon two RTI replies. The first is dated 12th March, 2025, by which AAI furnished copies of online acknowledgements of income-tax returns for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. The second is dated 7th April, 2025, by which the Regional Headquarters, Southern Region of AAI furnished certain payment particulars, stated to have been verified from bank statements and available data for the period prior to 1st April, 2013. On this basis, the Petitioner contends that the earlier stand of AAI regarding destruction or non-availability of records was false, that relevant records were available, and that the necessary certificate in Form 26A ought to be directed to be issued.
8. That contention cannot be accepted. The reply dated 12th March, 2025 only shows that AAI filed its returns of income for the relevant assessment years and disclosed aggregate figures of gross total income, total income, tax payable, taxes paid and refunds. It does not show that the particular sums allegedly paid by the Petitioner were taken into account by AAI while computing its taxable income. There is a material distinction between proof of filing of a return and proof that a specific receipt from a specific payer was accounted for in that return. The first proviso to Section 201(1) of the IT Act requires the latter.
9. The reply dated 7th April, 2025 also does not carry the Petitioner far. It records that certain payment particulars were verified from Regional Headquarters, Southern Region of AAI’s bank statements and available data. It also records that several entries claimed by the Petitioner were “Not Received”. These include, inter alia, entries of INR 5,00,000/-, INR 15,00,000/-, INR 44,639/- and INR 3,50,000/-. The reply further records discrepancies between the particulars furnished by the Petitioner and the position emerging from the bank statements, including mismatches in cheque or demand draft numbers and amounts. Far from demonstrating the existence of an admitted and complete accounting record, the reply reinforces that the matter would require reconciliation of old bank entries, instruments, accounting heads, ledgers and tax treatment.
10. The allegation that AAI concocted the plea of destruction of records or misled the Court is, therefore, wholly unwarranted. The stand placed before the Court earlier was that the physical records and pre-SAP/ERP data were unavailable and that the AIMS package did not permit retrieval of the relevant details. The RTI replies do not disprove that stand. A bank statement may show receipt of a sum. An income-tax return acknowledgement may show that a return was filed. Neither document, by itself, establishes that the particular sum paid by the Petitioner was taken into account by AAI while computing taxable income. Nor do these documents establish the availability of the accounting records necessary for an accountant to certify the facts contemplated by Form 26A. The RTI replies merely indicate that fragments of financial information remain available; they do not establish the existence of the complete records necessary for statutory certification under Form 26A.
11. The statutory scheme also does not support the Petitioner’s submission. Section 201(1) deems a person who fails to deduct tax at source to be an “assessee in default”. The first proviso relieves such person from that consequence only if the payee has furnished its return of income under Section 139, has taken into account the relevant sum for computing income in that return, has paid the tax due on the income declared, and the payer furnishes a certificate to that effect from an accountant in the prescribed form. Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribes Form 26A for that purpose. The certificate is not a routine administrative letter. It is a certification of specific statutory facts after examination of the payee’s return, accounts and relevant documents.
12. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot compel AAI to certify facts which remain unverified. A writ of mandamus lies to enforce a clear legal right and a corresponding public duty. It does not lie to command an authority to issue a factual certification in the absence of the records on which alone such certification can responsibly rest. The Petitioner’s request would require this Court to undertake, or direct AAI to undertake, a fresh accounting reconstruction of transactions dating back to 2008-2014. That exercise lies outside the limited review jurisdiction and, in any event, outside the proper remit of a writ of mandamus of the nature sought in the present petition.
13. Ground A of the review petition, alleging suppression and discovery of new facts, is therefore rejected. The RTI replies were procured only after the order under review was passed. The Petitioner has not explained why the underlying information could not have been sought and placed on record before the writ petition was decided. More importantly, even if the replies are considered, they do not establish that AAI possesses the accounting records or other material necessary for issuance of an Accountant’s Certificate prescribed in Annexure-A to Form 26A. They do not disclose any error apparent in the order under review.
14. Ground B proceeds on the premise that the ITAT, Indore Bench, by order dated 26th July, 2018 had already remanded the issue for verification and, therefore, the writ petition was maintainable to compel AAI to issue Form 26A material. This submission is also misconceived. The ITAT order, as noticed by the Division Bench, remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the payments claimed by the Petitioner had been disclosed by AAI in its return of income. That order itself demonstrates that the matter required verification by the tax authority. It did not create an automatic duty upon AAI to issue a certificate irrespective of the availability of the underlying records. The Petitioner has also not placed before this Court any subsequent order or proceeding indicating what transpired before the Assessing Officer after the remand. A review petition cannot be used to fill that gap.
15. Ground C challenges the finding on delay and laches. The challenge is unpersuasive. The Licence Agreement ended on 2nd April, 2015. Even if the Petitioner’s case is taken at the highest and the ITAT remand order dated 26th July, 2018 is treated as the relevant starting point, the writ petition came to be filed only in 2024. The delay from 2018 onwards also remains unexplained with the degree of clarity required in a writ proceeding seeking reconstruction and certification of old financial records. The plea of a continuing cause of action cannot answer laches where the relief depends upon records, ledgers and tax treatment of transactions several years old. The delay has a direct bearing on the feasibility of the relief sought. The order under review was, therefore, justified in treating the claim as stale.
16. Ground D concerns the applicability of the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the IT Act. The Petitioner contends that the proviso applied, at least in relation to Assessment Year 2013-14. Even assuming that this contention is arguable for one segment of the claim, it does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record. The order under review noticed that the Petitioner’s grievance substantially related to financial years preceding the effective date relied upon by the Respondents. In any event, the statutory date is not the only impediment. The Petitioner must still establish that the specific sums were taken into account by AAI while computing income and that the tax due on such income was paid. The RTI replies do not establish these ingredients.
17. There is an additional difficulty in the Petitioner’s formulation. The review petition refers to Assessment Year 2013-14, but the RTI record includes a payment stated to have been made on 19th February, 2014, which would ordinarily pertain to Financial Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2014-15. The RTI reply dated 12th March, 2025, as relied upon by the Petitioner, furnishes return acknowledgements only up to Assessment Year 2013-14. The reply dated 7th April, 2025, in any event, records the said amount of INR 3,50,000/- as “Not Received”. These are not matters which can be resolved in review. They further illustrate why the original writ relief could not have been granted as a matter of mandamus.
18. The review petition, therefore, seeks a rehearing of the writ petition on the strength of subsequent correspondence which does not alter the decisive position. The RTI replies do not establish that the specific sums allegedly paid by the Petitioner were taken into account by AAI while computing its taxable income, nor do they demonstrate availability of the records necessary for issuance of an Accountant’s Certificate, as prescribed in Annexure-A to Form 26A. The review petition does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record. It does not establish discovery of decisive material which, despite due diligence, could not have been produced earlier. Nor does it demonstrate that the order dated 28th November, 2024 proceeded on a factual premise that has since been demonstrably falsified.
19. No ground for review is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.